eth_search_education

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the nuance of a 'curated' search, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like result ordering, pagination, or potential restrictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise.

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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not mention the expected output format or any additional context like the curated nature's implications, leaving room for improvement.

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?

The description provides no additional parameter information beyond the input schema. However, the schema itself has detailed descriptions for each parameter (topic, limit, resource_type, open_access_only), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Kuratierte Suche nach bildungsrelevanten Ressourcen' (curated search for education-relevant resources). It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource type (education resources at ETH Library), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eth_search_resources' which likely handle general searches.

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-related queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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