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 only mentions the major requirement and does not state side effects, validation rules, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 very concise, with no redundant or filler content. It front-loads the primary purpose. However, the ambiguous phrasing '高中和初中以上' slightly detracts from clarity, preventing a top score.

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?

Despite the rich schema, the description lacks necessary context for an agent to effectively use the tool. It does not explain when to add education experience, what the expected outcome is, or how to handle the required fields. The major requirement is mentioned but ambiguously worded, leaving the description incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a rule about major being required for high school and above, which supplements the schema's note that major is optional for high school and below. While helpful, this is a minor addition given the schema's completeness.

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 '添加教育经历' (add education experience), which clearly identifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like add-work-exp or add-project-exp. However, the phrase '高中和初中以上' introduces slight ambiguity about which education levels are covered, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description neither mentions when not to use it nor suggests using modify-edu-exp for updates. The name implies an add operation, but the description itself does not convey usage context.

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