map_campuses_within_district

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial context beyond this: response_profile defaults to 'map', pagination via cursor/next_cursor, payload.table and payload.exports for list outputs, and the payload.completeness.needs_follow_up behavior. It also mentions the boundary_reference download_url. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence adds value: purpose, when-to-use, response profile, pagination, export behavior, follow-up logic, and an example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and maintains efficient structure without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key output characteristics (campus points, boundary_reference URL), pagination, response profiles, exports, and follow-up handling. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 69%, so the description bears some responsibility. It supplements the schema by clarifying that response_profile defaults to 'map' for compact GeoJSON-only responses, that campus_list_format compacts list outputs, and that pagination uses cursor/next_cursor. It does not explain all parameters (e.g., limit, include_geojson) but adds meaningful context for the most important ones.

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 clearly identifies a specific verb+resource: it shows campuses on an interactive map within a district boundary. It also distinguishes itself as a 'map-focused alias' for within-boundary queries, differentiating it from sibling tools like find_campuses_in_district_boundary and map_charter_campuses_within_district.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this when the user asks to show campuses on an interactive map.' It does not name alternatives directly, but the word 'alias' implies a non-map counterpart, and the example 'Show campuses within Austin ISD on a map' gives clear context. Missing explicit when-not guidance keeps it from a 5.

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