list_education

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is a single short sentence that merely restates the tool's function. It doesn't disclose pagination defaults, the profile-scoping behavior (account-scoped vs profile-scoped keys), or sorting defaults—though some of this is partially covered by schema parameter descriptions. A list operation with a filter/sort/pagination contract deserves more behavioral context.

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 Japanese sentence with no filler. It's front-loaded and wastes zero words. However, it's arguably under-specified—extreme brevity means missing useful behavioral context—but as a standalone sentence it's clean and 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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the profile-scoping requirements (account-scoped keys need profile_id), pagination behavior, or what the response contains. The tool has moderate complexity (nested objects, filter object) and would benefit from describing its list/filter/pagination contract. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this.

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%, so the input schema already documents all 6 parameters including defaults (limit=50, order_by=created_at, order_desc=true). The description adds nothing about parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies since schema does the heavy lifting, and the profile_id parameter has a genuinely informative description explaining the account/profile-scoped key distinction.

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・教育一覧を取得' (Get education/education list) clearly identifies the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (education list), which is a standard list operation. It's distinct enough from siblings like get_education (singular fetch) and create_education/update_education/delete_education (mutations), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_career_entries or list_skills.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention distinguishing from list_career_entries, list_skills, or other list tools, nor does it note that profile_id is required for account-scoped API keys (that detail only appears in the schema parameter description). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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