educational_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Education and learning guidance' with no information about what the tool does, what inputs affect, what output is produced, or any side effects. This is essentially a label, not a behavioral description.

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 extremely brief, but under-specification is not conciseness. A single vague phrase without structure or detail does not earn efficiency credit; it is under-specified.

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 tool with 5 parameters (3 required), enums, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about expected behavior, return values, or how parameters relate to the tool's function.

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% for all 5 parameters, so per rubric baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides short descriptions for each field, so no deduction is warranted.

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?

Description '教育和学习指导' (Education and learning guidance) essentially restates the tool name 'educational_guidance' without specifying concrete action or output. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like career_guidance or health_analysis, providing no actionable detail about what kind of guidance is delivered.

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?

No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternative guidance tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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