urban_ed_colleges

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the data source (IPEDS) and coverage (Title IV institutions), but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as return format, pagination behavior, or rate 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource while adding relevant scope information in the second sentence.

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 query tool with a well-documented schema, the description combined with the schema is sufficient. It names the data source and population coverage, though it does not describe the response structure since no output schema is provided.

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%, with all four parameters individually documented (year, limit, offset, stateFips). The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond noting that the data is FTE enrollment, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Query'), the resource ('college/university enrollment data (FTE) from IPEDS'), and the scope ('all Title IV postsecondary institutions'). This differentiates it well from sibling tools like urban_ed_schools and urban_ed_districts.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to query FTE enrollment data from IPEDS for Title IV postsecondary institutions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific wording makes the intended use obvious enough.

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