urban_ed_schools

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as the data source (CCD) and national coverage. It does not disclose potential caveats like rate limits, pagination behavior, or data update frequency. Given the presence of readOnlyHint, the description adds some but not rich behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences with no fluff. The key action ('Query school-level enrollment data') is front-loaded, followed by a concise scope statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions and annotations indicate read-only behavior, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it does not enumerate possible filters (like state or grade) or describe the response format, which would be useful since there is no output schema. Still, it is complete enough for a straightforward query tool with well-documented parameters.

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%, meaning each parameter (year, grade, limit, offset, stateFips) already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific action ('Query school-level enrollment data') and identifies the resource (CCD, Common Core of Data). It differentiates from sibling tools like urban_ed_districts and urban_ed_colleges by explicitly specifying 'school-level' enrollment data. The scope ('Covers all public schools in the US') adds further clarity.

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: it is for querying school-level enrollment data, covering all US public schools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for district-level data, use urban_ed_districts). The absence of exclusions is acceptable, but no explicit alternative guidance means it doesn't reach a 5.

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