get_transfer_insights

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the return format (Sankey, map-ready, shares, shifts, distances) and optional scoping behavior, which goes beyond the structured fields. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first defines purpose and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded, with no redundant words or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers what the tool does, the nature of outputs, and when to use it. With 6 optional parameters and no output schema, it gives sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it doesn't detail parameter interactions or output structure beyond the listed components.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description only mentions 'district or campus query,' aligning with existing parameters but not adding new depth beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze outbound student transfer flows across campuses.' It enumerates concrete output types (Sankey nodes/links, map-ready flow lines, charter vs traditional shares, rating shifts, distance patterns) which fully distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on districts, campuses, or boundaries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this for transfer dynamics, school choice patterns, or charter share questions,' providing clear usage context. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but the unique transfer focus among siblings makes it obvious when to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.