campus_housing

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it only implies a passive informational lookup without stating read-only behavior, side effects, or result shape. The risk surface is low for this kind of lookup, but the description never confirms it returns a list vs a single record or how multiple campuses are handled (that detail lives only in the schema).

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical listing the covered fields; there is no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting useful routing information, but nothing is redundant.

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 one-optional-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, listing the returned fields (address, amenities, phone) partially compensates for the missing output schema. It still leaves unclear how results are keyed per campus and why an agent should choose this over overlapping campus info siblings.

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%: the single campus parameter already carries its enum values and the 'default means all campuses' semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 names a specific resource (campus housing) and enumerates what it covers: address, amenities, and contact phone. That is clearly more informative than the bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from the many adjacent siblings such as campus_dining, campus_services, campus_map, or contact_info.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of when not to use it. In a sibling set that includes campus_services and contact_info, an agent has to guess whether housing addresses come from this tool or from those.

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