Out-of-state tuition penalty ranking

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

No annotations are provided, so description must carry full burden. It states the tool returns rankings with specific data per row (NPVs, tuition) but does not disclose read-only nature, data source, update frequency, or any side effects. Adequate but missing some transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first covers purpose, second covers output content. No wasted words, appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return values (NPVs, tuition figures per row). However, it does not specify ordering direction (e.g., descending penalty) or the default sort. Mostly complete.

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 parameter definitions are already complete. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it only mentions what is included per row (output), not parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it ranks U.S. public four-year colleges by out-of-state penalty, defines the penalty as NPV difference, and mentions included data (NPVs, tuition). This distinguishes it from siblings like best_value_colleges and search_colleges.

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 use when interested in out-of-state penalty ranking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like best_value_colleges or search_colleges. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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