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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds value by disclosing the content scope of the response, including a derived set (upcoming events) that the agent would not otherwise anticipate.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the returned-content summary is front-loaded ahead of the input-provenance tip. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so by listing the profile fields. It is essentially complete for a single-parameter read tool, with only error or not-found behavior left unstated.

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% and the schema already documents the slug with an example, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds a second provenance path ('from a get_event teacher link') that the schema does not mention, giving meaningful extra context on valid input sources.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') plus a precise resource ('one person's public profile') and enumerates the content returned: bio, location, practices, years of experience, and upcoming events. This makes it clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_event and get_venue tools without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly states where the required input comes from — 'a slug from search_teachers or from a get_event teacher link' — which routes the agent correctly after a search. It stops short of any when-not-to-use condition or explicit alternative tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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