educator_curriculum_recovery

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

The description adds 'Deterministic playbook' and 'Free' beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false). However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or output format. The added context is useful but limited.

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 concise with two short sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value without filler.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a recovery plan or actions), and provides no guidance on parameter usage beyond the schema. Significant gaps remain.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra value 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?

The description clearly states it is a 'Domain-specific recovery for education/curriculum/grant setbacks' with specific examples (proposal rejection, cohort planning burnout). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like crisis_intervention or financial_setback_processing, which target 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 education/curriculum/grant setbacks via the domain specification, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool names. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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