Search colleges by name/state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dataset scope (500 largest-coverage colleges), the returned columns, and the default sort. It does not mention side effects but the tool is clearly read-only. The description adds good behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and key columns, then filtering and sorting details. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. The structure is clear 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return columns, filtering, and default sort. It also notes the slug usage with get_college. However, it does not mention the maximum limit (100) or whether results are paginated. It could be slightly more complete for a search tool with 5 parameters.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining the filtering options ('Filter by name substring, state, and control') and the sort override behavior ('sorted by resident NPV descending unless overridden'). This compensates for the missing schema descriptions on control and sort_by.

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 what the tool does: 'Search the 500 largest-coverage U.S. four-year colleges'. It specifies the columns returned (NPV, cost, earnings, break-even age), filtering options (name, state, control), and the default sort order. It also differentiates from sibling 'get_college' by noting that the returned slug can be used with that tool.

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 implicitly guides usage by indicating when to filter by name, state, and control, and when to use the returned slug with get_college. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'best_value_colleges' or 'out_of_state_penalty', nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives.

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