Find a school's Wilma

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description is free to add domain behavior instead: city schools share a city Wilma, big cities don't list each school, and multiple tenants can match one city. It stops short of describing result shape or result-set size.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the domain caveats and usage hint. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 one required parameter, no output schema and rich annotations, the definition covers when and how to call it. It could still say what a hit looks like (tenant name, URL, city) so an agent knows what to present to the user, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single query parameter is already documented with an example in the schema. The description adds only the small clarification that organisation names also work, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("Finland's Wilma addresses") with the two search dimensions (city or school/organisation name). It also explains the domain model that distinguishes city-level vs. school-specific Wilma tenants, which no sibling tool addresses.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ("help the user pick their Wilma, e.g. when setting WILMA_TENANT") and an interaction rule ("several can serve one city, so ask which is theirs"). No explicit exclusions or named alternatives among siblings, so not a full 5.

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