eth_search_education

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior)Skip; the description adds highly valuable behavioral detail: on empty results, the hint field should suggest the next attempt, and the tool must never fabricate a bibliographic reference to fill a missing hit. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and is critical for agent behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential behavioral rules. The FID-003 label is slightly jargon-heavy, but every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

For a read-only search tool, the combination of description and schema is sufficient: it identifies scope, required topic input, result limits, filters, and key anti-hallucination behavior. No output schema is present, but for a search operation the description handles the most important edge cases.

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 adds no direct parameter guidance, but the nested input schema contains thorough descriptions and examples for topic, limit, resource_type, and open_access_only. Thus the schema carries the parameter semantics, and the description neither improves nor harms that coverage.

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 opens with 'Kuratierte Suche nach bildungsrelevanten Ressourcen in der ETH-Bibliothek', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is clear that this is an education-focused library search, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as eth_search_resources.

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 terms 'Kuratierte' and 'bildungsrelevanten' imply when this tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it vs. alternatives like eth_search_resources or eth_search_archive. The usage context is implied rather than stated with exclusions or alternative routing.

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