uis_get_education_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a valuable operational caveat: unknown country codes yield HTTP 200 with an empty result list and explanatory hints, preventing typo/empty-data confusion. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then use cases, a behavioral caveat, and an Args/Returns summary. The four example bullets are slightly verbose, but each illustrates a distinct usage pattern, so they largely earn their place.

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 data-fetch tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, usage examples, a key caveat, and output format. It omits explicit sibling routing and detailed year-range semantics, but is otherwise adequate for correct invocation.

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?

With reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description lists the parameters (indicator_id required, country_code, start_year, end_year) and examples clarify indicator IDs and country usage. But it adds little semantic detail beyond names and examples already present in the schema's own property descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves education data from the UNESCO UIS API, with scope of a specific indicator for one or all countries. It calls itself the server's core function and gives concrete indicator examples, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like uis_compare_countries or uis_country_education_profile.

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?

Provides four typical use-case examples with concrete indicator/country combinations, which implies when to use it. However, it never states when not to use it or names alternative sibling tools, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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