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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'full canonical record' and 'version history', indicating a read operation with historical data. However, it omits any mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds some context but could be more explicit about the operation's nature.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key feature (version history). No unnecessary words or redundancy. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema (handling return structure), the description appropriately focuses on the core behavior. It covers the main purpose and a notable feature (version history). One might expect mention of required permissions or the tool's scope (e.g., single entity only), but it is largely complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0% and the description does not elaborate on the single parameter (education_id). The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should ideally clarify what constitutes a valid ID (e.g., numeric identifier from a listing). Without this, the agent may not understand how to obtain the ID.

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 specific verb 'get' and resource 'education/tutoring listing', clearly distinguishing it from search siblings (e.g., search_education_by_text) and other category-specific detail tools. It adds 'canonical record' and 'version history' for precision.

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?

Implies use when a specific education_id is known and full details (including version history) are needed, but no explicit when-not or alternatives are provided. Given the many sibling tools, guidance on when to use get_education_details versus search or other get_*_details would be beneficial.

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