Search University

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: 'local file-first' indicates the data source and 'without guessing ambiguous matches' explains matching behavior. However, return format and error handling are not disclosed, which prevents a higher score.

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, front-loaded with the verb 'Search', and every word adds meaning. It is concise and well-structured, with no wasted verbiage.

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 one parameter, the description gives some context but leaves gaps: no output schema, no explanation of return format, and the phrase 'without guessing ambiguous matches' is ambiguous itself. It does not clarify how this tool relates to sibling tools like explore_universities or validate_source_coverage, so the context is incomplete.

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 schema has one parameter ('query') with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what format or semantics 'query' expects. Since the description is the only source of parameter info, this is a significant gap.

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 that the tool searches university records, with the qualifiers 'local file-first' and 'without guessing ambiguous matches' providing some scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like explore_universities by implying exact-match behavior, but it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives some context ('file-first', 'without guessing ambiguous matches') that implies it is for exact local searches, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to. No exclusions are stated, and the sibling tools are not referenced.

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