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

Annotations already communicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose idempotence implications, whether duplicate entries are created, what happens to existing education entries, or any other behavioral trait beyond the schema and 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. The verb is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the 8-parameter schema and output schema, the one-line description is minimally adequate but does not add operational context. It does not explain the workflow around subjectId, the meaning of isCurrent in practice, or the effect of adding multiple education entries. The schema and annotations carry most of the burden here.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention any specific parameters, but it also does not need to because the schema already documents all 8 fields, including subjectId, isCurrent, and date ranges.

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 clear verb ('Attaches') and a specific resource ('educational institution to an SMI subject'). This distinctly separates it from the many sibling smi_add_subject_* tools, which all target different entity types.

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?

When to use the tool is implied by its stated purpose: use it to attach an educational institution to a subject. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it, even though numerous smi_add_subject_* sibling tools exist.

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