ic_list_districts

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail that the response contains names and base URLs and explicitly excludes credentials, but does not describe authentication, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the return-content clarification earns its place. There is no 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?

For a simple one-parameter listing tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what is returned and what is excluded (credentials). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or when to call it, but those are secondary given the tool's simplicity.

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 single optional view parameter is documented in the schema in detail. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 (List) and resource (Infinite Campus districts configured for this MCP server), and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ic_list_teachers or ic_list_students through the unique resource it targets.

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?

It says what the tool returns, but provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is a discovery/config-listing tool from context alone.

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