aeroedu_question_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds search scope details (filters, output usability) but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. No contradictions; the description aligns with the read-only, non-destructive nature.

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 two sentences in Vietnamese, concise and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second lists supported filters and output use. No redundancy or fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but highly efficient.

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 search tool with 9 optional parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of capabilities and downstream integration (exam creation). It doesn't detail pagination behavior beyond schema-defined limit/offset, but that is adequate. Missing explicit return format info, but not critical given schema coverage.

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% – every parameter already has a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'Full-text search', 'Môn học', 'Lớp học'). The tool description merely summarizes these filters without adding significant new semantics. Thus, 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 'Tìm kiếm câu hỏi trong Ngân hàng câu hỏi (Question Bank) của AeroEdu' – a specific verb ('search') and resource ('question bank'). It lists multiple search dimensions (subject, grade, topic, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like 'aeroedu_kg_search' (knowledge graph) and 'aeroedu_exam_create' (which uses the results). No ambiguity.

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 explicitly mentions that results can be used directly for 'aeroedu_exam_create questions array', providing clear downstream usage context. While it doesn't state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, the search criteria and purpose are well-defined enough for an agent to decide appropriately.

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