map_charter_campuses_within_district

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: response_profile defaults to 'map', pagination via cursor/next_cursor, payload.table/exports for list outputs, and the need to follow next_tool_call when payload.completeness.needs_follow_up is true. This adds substantial context about response handling and limits.

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 dense but efficient; each sentence adds unique, critical operational information. It is structured logically: purpose, example, defaults, pagination, output formats, and follow-up instructions. No redundancy 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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a solid job explaining response behavior: pagination, map/list modes, exports, and follow-up calls. It could be more explicit about the exact GeoJSON structure or payload shape, but it provides enough detail for an agent to start using the tool effectively.

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?

While the schema already covers most parameter descriptions (75% coverage), the description adds clarity to response_profile (default 'map' for compact GeoJSON), campus_list_format (compaction control), and cursor (pagination). It does not systematically explain all 12 parameters, but the added value pushes it to the baseline 3.

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 states the tool's purpose: a map-focused alias for charter-only campuses within a district boundary. It includes an explicit example prompt and distinguishes it from siblings like find_charter_campuses_within_district by emphasizing the map-oriented response_profile.

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 provides a concrete use case with an example prompt and explains when to use this tool (when an interactive map of charter campuses is desired). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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