san_antonio_tea_schools

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses authoritative data sources (TEA 2022-2023, AskTED) and the non-mapping limitation. It also enumerates return fields, adding context helpful for an agent.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose. Three sentences cover purpose, search options, return data, examples, sources, and a caveat without redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (rating, sub-scores, enrollment, demographics, etc.). It also gives example districts and source context, making it sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds concrete examples (e.g., 'San Antonio ISD') and groups searchable fields, but doesn't explain how multiple filters combine or affect results, leaving a minor gap.

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 opens with 'Look up Texas public schools and their TEA accountability ratings,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools about weather, 311, and general info by focusing on school accountability data.

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?

It states searchable attributes (campus name, district, county, city) and provides example district values. It explicitly notes when not to use it (address-to-school mapping) and points to ISDs for that need, though it doesn't name an alternative MCP tool.

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