uis_get_education_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the result is a markdown-formatted table or time series, and warns that omitting a country can return a large dataset. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, examples, and parameter list. It is moderately sized and front-loaded. Some redundancy with the schema exists, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of the tool (nested parameters, many sibling tools), the description covers purpose, usage examples, parameter list, and return format. It references sibling tools indirectly in the parameter description. With annotations and output schema present, it is fairly complete.

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?

Although the input schema has detailed descriptions inside $defs, the top-level schema coverage is 0%. The description lists parameters and gives examples, but does not explain each parameter in depth. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not fully.

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 retrieves educational data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics API, specifying it is the core function of the server and providing concrete examples with expected outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on raw indicator data for one or all countries.

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 gives typical use cases with example parameters, but does not explicitly tell when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings like uis_compare_countries or uis_list_indicators. The context of usage is implied but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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