Query School Data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose valuable coverage limits (US limited to 52 cities, CA unsupported) and the underlying data sources (NCES, DfE GIAS), but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, response shape, or whether results are read-only snapshots.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then organizes the data-source detail by country in a scannable structure. Every line earns its place, though the standalone 'CA: Not yet available.' line could be folded in without loss.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of indicating what data comes back per country, which is the right thing to cover. The 52-city US limitation is a helpful completeness note, though the exact response structure and any pagination or result-count behavior remain unstated.

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% and the schema already documents both city and country, including the ambiguous-city rule. The description only restates auto-detection with the country parameter, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific resource (school data) and immediately enumerates what is returned per country — enrollment, student-teacher ratios, finance (US); school counts, types, Ofsted ratings (UK). An agent can tell this apart from siblings like query_demographics or search_uk_datasets from the description alone.

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?

It implies when the tool applies by scoping geography (US/UK supported, CA 'not yet available'), which usefully prevents misuse for Canadian cities. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as search_uk_datasets or query_city_data.

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