browse_education_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: returns a results list with specific fields, max_results upper limit of 5, and explicitly states it will not attempt login or bypass access controls. This is comprehensive.

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, containing only relevant sentences without fluff. It uses a bullet-like format for clarity, making it 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?

The tool has 3 parameters, 2 required, an output schema (so return values are covered), and no annotations. The description covers constraints (max_results limit, no auth) and output structure. It could be more complete by noting error handling or source validation, but overall sufficient for operation.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'source' with an example (platform name or URL) but does not clarify the 'query' parameter beyond its type. 'max_results' is mentioned as having an upper limit of 5, but no additional semantic detail.

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 verb (搜尋/search) and resource (學習資源/learning resources) on official education platforms. It distinguishes from siblings: discover_education_sources (discovering sources) and read_education_resource (reading a specific resource).

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 constraint (no login or bypass access control) implying use only for public resources. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (discover_education_sources, read_education_resource).

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