List RaivatEdu Solutions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds non-obvious cost information: include_descriptions triggers one live HTTP request per item and is slower, versus returning only verified labels and URLs by default. It could say more about failure behavior when a live fetch fails, but the cost disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then segment enumeration, then the follow-up tool, then params and return shape. The Args and Returns sections duplicate structured data, which is mild waste, but the overall ordering and length remain easy to scan.

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 present, the description supplies the exact JSON return shape including field names and the optional description field. Combined with the segment list and follow-up routing, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the enumerated market values, defaults, and format options are already documented in the schema. The description's Args block largely restates them ('defaults to the configured market', 'default false', 'default markdown') without adding new semantics such as URL pattern per market. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the audience/solution segments RaivatEdu targets') and immediately enumerates the four segments, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. This is clearly differentiated from sibling listing tools like list_pages and list_features by naming the resource domain (audience segments).

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 routes the agent forward: use raivatedu_get_page_content on a returned URL for segment-specific pitch content, and explains when to set include_descriptions (only when summaries are needed). It does not state when to prefer raivatedu_list_pages instead for general page discovery, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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