get_education

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it retrieves education data by ID and returns nothing about read-only behavior, error conditions (e.g., not found behavior), required permissions/auth, or what happens on invalid UUIDs. For a read operation without annotation support, it should at least confirm non-mutating behavior and describe response shape.

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 a single concise sentence (学歴・教育を取得 (IDで指定)) that efficiently communicates the purpose. It's appropriately short for a simple get-by-ID operation. No wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, read operation, likely returns a single education record). The description, combined with the schema, is mostly adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, and with no mention of what fields the returned education entry contains or behavior on missing IDs, it could be slightly more complete. The minimal complexity keeps the gap small.

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 the single 'id' parameter is already well-documented as 'エントリID (UUID)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the ID selects which education entry to fetch. With full schema coverage and a single simple param, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '学歴・教育を取得 (IDで指定)' clearly states the action (get education by ID) and the resource (education/history). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_education, create_education, or get_skill/get_hobby which follow the same pattern. The verb+resource is clear but sibling differentiation is weak since all get_* tools look identical.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that list_education would be used to enumerate without an ID, or that create/update/delete handle mutations. The description only says 'get by ID' which implies some usage context but provides no exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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