Explore Universities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the core safety/behavioral profile. The description adds the 'factual' and 'local' qualifiers but does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., unresolved queries, missing indicators) or output format specifics. No contradiction with 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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with two array parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. It gives a high-level idea of inputs and output but lacks details on query syntax, expected indicator names, or side-by-side formatting. Sibling comparisons are not addressed, and there is no guidance on alternative tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the two parameters (university_queries and indicators) but does not elaborate on accepted formats, value sources (e.g., must come from list_indicators), or how 'resolve' handles ambiguous names. The parameter names are self-descriptive, but the description adds little beyond them.

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 states a clear action ('Resolve universities') and a specific output ('factual side-by-side local indicator data'), which distinguishes it from listing sources and searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'compare_universities', so the purpose is clear but not fully unique.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compare_universities, get_university_metrics, or search_university. There are no exclusions or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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