List RaivatEdu Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one real behavioral disclosure is that include_descriptions triggers live per-item fetching and is slower — but that is already spelled out in the schema. Nothing is said about failure modes or what happens for a market with no articles.

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?

Well front-loaded: the purpose and the follow-up tool come first, then Args, then Returns. The Args section largely duplicates a fully-covered schema, so it costs a few lines that do not earn their place, but the overall structure is scannable and not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by giving the exact JSON return shape (market, landing_pages, count, articles with optional description), which is what an agent needs to plan a follow-up call. It does not mention pagination or whether the article list is complete, but for a small static catalogue that is a minor gap.

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% and all three parameters are fully documented with enums and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args block restates the same defaults (market falls back to the configured market, include_descriptions default false) without adding syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource (list RaivatEdu's publicly available educational resource articles) and enumerates the two things returned: article catalogue plus the resources/blog/guides/help landing pages. It distinguishes itself from the retrieval sibling by naming raivatedu_get_page_content as the way to read article bodies.

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?

Explicitly gives the follow-up route: "Use raivatedu_get_page_content on a URL to read the full article text," which makes the list-then-fetch pattern unambiguous. It does not, however, contrast with raivatedu_list_pages or raivatedu_search_content, so the agent must infer when this catalogue listing beats those siblings.

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