ic_list_districts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns only names and base URLs and explicitly states that no credentials are exposed. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the non-sensitive nature of the response.

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 short sentences deliver the purpose, scope, and return content with zero filler. The key action is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about credentials adds real value without bloating the description.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It names the resource, the return contents, and the safe scope, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the only parameter, view, is fully documented in the schema with detailed semantics for 'compact' and 'full'. The tool description does not need to repeat parameter details; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter-semantic load.

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 verb and resource ('List Infinite Campus districts configured for this MCP server') and immediately tells the caller what to expect ('Returns names + base URLs (no credentials)'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as ic_list_students or ic_list_assessments.

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 clear context: this tool enumerates the districts this server is configured for, which implies its use for discovering available districts. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but none are needed since sibling tools target different resources.

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