dallas_tea_schools

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

The description fully aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) and adds valuable context: authoritative sources (TEA 2022-2023), fuzzy search behavior, and the limitation regarding attendance zones. It discloses the read-only nature and data recency, exceeding annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating core purpose, followed by search options, returned fields, examples, source citation, and a limitation note. It is informative without excess; however, some sentences could be slightly shorter.

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 7 optional parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, the description adequately covers expected returns (ratings, sub-scores, enrollment, demographics, etc.), sources, and data freshness. It sets proper expectations for what the tool does and does not do, making it reasonably complete for a lookup tool.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond parameter descriptions by providing specific examples (e.g., 'Dallas ISD', 'Booker T Washington HSPVA'), clarifying that searches are 'fuzzy contains', and explaining the 'rating' parameter as '2022-2023 overall rating'. This adds practical guidance.

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 verb ('Look up'), resource ('Texas public schools and their TEA accountability ratings'), and scope ('Search by campus name, district, county, or city'). It lists what is returned and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on schools and ratings, while sibling tools cover about, alerts, and 311 services.

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 for when to use the tool (looking up Texas public schools and ratings) and explicitly states what it does NOT do (address mapping to attendance zones). While it does not mention alternatives, sibling tools are unrelated, so explicit when-not guidance is less critical.

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