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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile carries no burden here. The description adds one useful return-content hint ('with resource counts'), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the limit cap of 100, nor about how the language parameter affects output labels.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes a return-shape note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 should carry more weight on return contents; it gives only the vague phrase 'with resource counts' and does not describe what fields each level entry has or that labels vary by language. It is serviceable but leaves real gaps for a tool an agent must interpret results from.

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 both limit and language are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics beyond that.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('educational levels') and even enumerates examples (Primary, Secondary, Higher Education), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like browse_subjects or browse_resource_types, which follow the identical browse-a-vocabulary pattern.

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 no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance, which is a notable gap given four sibling 'browse_*' tools that an agent could easily confuse. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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