search_schools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that data is live from GIAS and that results are a list with specific fields, but it does not disclose whether at least one search criterion is required, how matching works (exact vs partial), pagination behavior, or potential rate limits. These are significant gaps for a live-data search tool.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and scope. Every phrase earns its place, and it avoids boilerplate repetition of the schema.

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?

The description states purpose, data source, and the fields returned, which is adequate for a simple search tool. However, it omits important constraints like the need to supply at least one search criterion despite all parameters being optional, and it does not describe ordering or output limits beyond the 'limit' parameter's existence. Given no output schema and no annotations, this leaves the agent with meaningful unknowns.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does restate the meaning of 'query' as name or postcode and 'local_authority' as local authority name, but it adds little beyond the schema. It does not clarify partial matching, the relationship between query and phase, or the behavior when no parameters are provided.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'UK schools', then defines the exact scope: by name, postcode, or local authority. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_schools_near_postcode, which focuses narrowly on proximity searches, and get_school_details, which targets individual institutions.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool by listing the three supported search criteria and noting the live GIAS data source. However, it does not explicitly direct the agent to alternative tools when appropriate (e.g., 'for proximity-based searches use find_schools_near_postcode'), so it stops short of a 5.

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