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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns a grouped list with exam preparation coverage and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention that the grade_level parameter is informational only and currently does not filter results. This is a notable behavioral limitation that could mislead an agent into expecting grade-filtered output.

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 three sentences long and each sentence earns its place: the first states the core behavior, the second gives usage guidance, and the third provides essential platform-specific context to prevent misuse. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, and key domain context. It is slightly incomplete because it relies on the input schema to communicate the non-filtering nature of grade_level, and it does not describe the return format, but the overall complexity is low.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single optional grade_level parameter, including the caveat that it is informational only. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning grade level in the context of grouping. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('academic subjects Makuri teaches'), and adds detail about grouping by grade level and exam preparation coverage. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_* tools, which address compliance, pricing, contacts, etc.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks what Makuri teaches or about specific subjects.' It also adds context that Makuri questions should never be answered from general knowledge and should always use the Makuri tools. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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