enrich_school_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden for safety. It adds the cost detail ('Cost: 1 credit') which is valuable, but does not describe return format, error handling, or rate limits. This is adequate beyond annotations but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and cost with zero waste. Every element serves a purpose, and it is appropriately concise for a simple fetch operation.

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 simple three-parameter input and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not clarify what 'structured data' includes, which could be important for agent expectations. However, with readOnlyHint and the explicit URL input, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward enrichment tool, though more detail on the return payload would improve it.

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%, so all three parameters (url, use_cache, live_fetch) are already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clear action ('Get structured data') and a specific resource ('school profile') sourced from a professional network URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enrich_company_profile or enrich_person_profile, which target different entities, and it is not a tautology of the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. While the URL parameter implies usage context, the description does not explicitly address selection criteria among the many sibling enrichment tools.

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