read_education_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the tool does not attempt to log in or bypass access controls, returns a summary of up to 500 characters, and does not store full text. This provides good behavioral insight, though lacks details like error handling or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses bullet-like enumeration for parameters and behavior. Every sentence is substantive with no superfluous text.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately covers the key aspects: input parameters, return object fields, and access behavior. It could mention potential error scenarios but is largely complete for a simple read tool.

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 0%, so the description must add value. It explains the 'extract' parameter with allowed field values (title, summary, publisher, etc.) and notes summary length limit. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare definition.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads key information (summary, not full text) from a single public education resource page. It specifies that it is for reading, distinguishing it from browsing or discovering resources. The verb and resource are specific.

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 implies usage for reading a specific page's info but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (browse_education_source, discover_education_sources) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Usage context is inferred, not stated.

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