search_education_by_competency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists result fields and implies a read-only search operation, but does not disclose sorting, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description adds some value beyond the schema by listing the output fields.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and usage, the second lists result fields. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simple search tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and result fields. However, it lacks details about edge cases or behavioral constraints, which the output schema may partially address.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the 'competency' and 'mode' parameters.

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 finds education entries based on competency, with a specific use case (matching coursework to position requirements). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_education' and 'search_resumes_by_skill' by focusing on education and skill competency.

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 provides a clear context for use ('matching a candidate's coursework/training to a specific position's requirements'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools. The guidance is implicit through the sibling list.

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