edubase_get_organization_competencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a meaningful prerequisite about required feature enablement, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations and is consistent with the read-only behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is given in a separate concise sentence. Every word contributes value.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers the necessary purpose and a key precondition. It does not explicitly mention error cases or the exact return shape, but those are adequately covered by the output schema and annotations for this level of complexity.

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 parameter is already well documented. The description adds no new meaning about the 'organization' parameter beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('competencies of an organization'), and adds a scope condition (must be enabled). It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool get_organization_competency_requirements, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides a prerequisite condition ('Library and competencies must be enabled') that guides when the call will succeed, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the action statement rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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