alphaportal_list_schools

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description adds behavioral context by specifying that all schools in the district are returned along with name and coordinate fields. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a simple parameterless list operation this is not a major gap.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action and output fields are front-loaded, and the use case follows immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why an agent would use it. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently communicates the expected result.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. It still adds semantic value by explaining that the output can be used to resolve a school by name, which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema.

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 states a specific action ('List all schools in the district') and identifies the returned data (names and coordinates). This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_students or get_bus_location.

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 clear use case: 'Useful for resolving a school by name.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but with no sibling school-listing tool, the intended usage is evident.

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