Get College Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the data source (College Scorecard) and example fields but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or response format, which is acceptable given strong 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, data fields, and ID sourcing. No redundant information.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to obtain the required ID.

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% and the parameter description already explains school_id is a UNITID with an example. The description adds that IDs come from college_search, which is helpful but not essential, so only marginal value beyond schema.

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 tool gets detailed data for a US college by UNITID and lists example fields (admissions, costs, outcomes, earnings). It distinguishes from the sibling 'education.colleges.search' by mentioning getting IDs from that search.

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 explicitly guides the agent to first use college_search to obtain UNITIDs. It provides context on what data is returned (admissions rate, costs, etc.), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the search hint.

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