scorecard_query

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a read-only operation. The description adds value by showing filter syntax (e.g., __range operators) and field paths, which clarifies how queries work. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or empty result handling.

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 concise, with a clear opening sentence and useful bullet-list examples. It avoids redundancy with the schema. The examples are valuable but somewhat lengthy; a smaller set could suffice. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 query tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is adequate but missing context about return format, pagination limits, or error behavior. The filter examples are helpful but narrower in scope. A mention of response structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description's filter examples add meaning beyond the schema's 'semicolon-separated filter params' by showing specific syntax and range operators. However, no extra info is provided for sort or per_page, which remain covered solely by the schema.

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 'Advanced College Scorecard query with custom field filters and ranges', clearly identifying the tool as a flexible query interface for the College Scorecard dataset. The examples emphasize direct filtering on specific fields (e.g., admission rate, cost, earnings), distinguishing it from sibling tools like scorecard_search (simpler search), scorecard_compare (comparison), and scorecard_top (top lists).

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 implies usage for complex queries via field examples but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided. The sibling tool names suggest distinct purposes (search, compare, top), but the description does not leverage this.

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