tutor_card_subject_check

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

The description mentions the return values (primary, included, excluded, unknown) and that a matched term is provided when applicable. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers behavioral aspects.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action and return values. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the action, input, and output.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return values but does not elaborate on the input parameters, especially 'url' and 'document_json', which are undocumented. This leaves ambiguity about how to use the tool effectively.

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?

Only the 'query' parameter has a description in the schema; the 'url' and 'document_json' parameters lack descriptions both in the schema and in the tool description. With only 33% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the semantics of these parameters unclear.

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 classifies a topic against a tutor's subject scope and lists the possible return values. It distinguishes from sibling tools, which are mostly validation and inspection tools, by being a classification tool. However, it could be more specific about the 'tutor' context.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. It simply states what it does without context for appropriate use.

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