academy_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the word 'public', with no disclosure of pagination behavior, result ordering, or what 'public' excludes — minimal added value beyond structured 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?

A single six-word sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification given five parameters and a large sibling set.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but the description leaves the three undocumented parameters, the browse-vs-search distinction, and the tool's relationship to academy_search and academy_glossary unaddressed. For a zero-required-param listing tool with paging, this is not enough to invoke it confidently.

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 description coverage is only 40%: locale and idempotencyKey are documented in the schema, but limit, query, and cursor have no description anywhere. The tool description never mentions any parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap — notably the cursor/limit pagination contract and the query syntax are entirely unspecified.

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 verb pair 'Browse and search' plus the resource 'public concepts' gives a workable gist, but 'concepts' is undefined against a crowded sibling set containing academy_glossary, academy_glossary_term, academy_search, and academy_library. Nothing in the sentence tells an agent which of those holds concept data versus glossary terms.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than academy_search, academy_glossary, or academy_suggest, and no indication of when to browse (cursor paging) versus search (query). The agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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