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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds genuinely new context: only ACTIVE teachers are returned, which is a real filtering behavior an agent cannot derive from the annotations or the empty schema.

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 sentence with zero filler. The scope constraint (ACTIVOS) and the returned fields are front-loaded and every clause carries information.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing pieces: the active-only filter and the returned fields. Only the absence of routing guidance to get_teacher keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule this sits at 4. The description instead documents the shape of the returned records (nome, função, descrição curta), which is useful because no output schema exists.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lista todos os professores') with a clear scope qualifier ('ATIVOS'). The plural/scope contrasts implicitly with the sibling get_teacher, though it never names the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_teacher, list_services, or search. The intended use (bulk listing rather than single fetch) is inferable from the plural name but never stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites appear.

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