scholar_campus

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full load and does disclose meaningful behavior: it performs an active beacon probe rather than reading cached state, and results are cached for 30 minutes. It omits what a probe costs in latency, how failures or non-publisher networks are reported, and what the return value looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

A single sentence with the core question front-loaded and the mechanism/caching detail parenthetical. Nothing is redundant and no explanation is buried at the end.

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-parameter status probe, the definition covers what is checked and the caching behavior, but there is no output schema and no statement of the return shape (boolean vs. structured detail) or error semantics. An agent knows what the tool asks but not what it will receive back.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds context the schema does not: the 30-minute cache window is exactly what makes the 'refresh' flag meaningful, telling the agent the default is a cached answer. It still gives no guidance on the cost of forcing a re-probe.

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 check: whether the current egress IP is treated as a campus network by publishers, via beacon probing. That is a clear verb+resource statement, and the parenthetical adds the mechanism. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling (vpn_status) or from the other scholar_* tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as vpn_status or scholar_databases, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The intended use case (verifying off-campus publisher entitlement) can only be inferred from the purpose statement.

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