List Employee Education

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only gives a high-level statement of what is returned and does not mention read-only nature, default behavior when no filters are applied, ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation context.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Get employee education history records') and then enumerates included fields. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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 12 optional parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain default return set, how filters interact, or the structure of the returned records. The high parameter count and lack of output schema require more context to operate effectively.

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?

All 12 parameters have schema descriptions, covering 100% of parameter semantics. The tool description merely lists some returned fields (institution, qualification, etc.) and does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Get employee education history records' and specifies the key fields (institution, qualification, type, status, dates). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_employees or list_contacts, which focus on different domains.

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 implies usage for retrieving education history but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any specific context. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage inferred from the tool name and description.

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