Explain Indicator

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying the explanation includes source metadata and verification status, giving the agent a clearer picture of the response content without contradicting 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the verb, object, and key extra qualifiers, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and hints at output content (source metadata, verification status). However, it omits any mention of return format, error behavior, or constraints, and does not connect to sibling tools. This is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

The input schema has a single 'indicator' parameter with zero description (0% schema coverage). The description only implies the parameter is the indicator to be explained, noting it is a v0.1 indicator, but does not compensate for missing schema details such as format, allowed values, or requiredness. This is minimal clarification.

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 uses a specific verb 'explain' and a precise resource 'v0.1 indicator', and further clarifies it includes source metadata and verification status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_indicators, which merely list indicators, and compare_universities or search_university, which target different objects.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action without indicating conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools are not referenced, leaving the agent without direct decision support.

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