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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: results are short profiles containing slug and URL, and the full bio plus upcoming events require a separate get_teacher call. It does not mention result caps or ordering, which is a minor gap.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with purpose before the routing advice. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 usefully describes the return shape (short profiles with slug and URL) and the follow-up path. It leaves pagination/result-cap behavior to the schema and doesn't say how query and city interact when both are supplied, but nothing critical is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents city, role, limit and query. The description restates the name/location/role dimensions but adds no syntax, matching rules, or city-vs-country interaction detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Find) and resource (CI teachers, organizers, musicians) with the two axes of retrieval: by name or by location. It also names the sibling it is not — get_teacher for the full bio — so an agent can distinguish it without opening either 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?

Gives concrete triggering phrasings ('who teaches CI in <city>') and a second scenario (looking up a person mentioned in an event). It explicitly routes deeper lookups to get_teacher, so the alternative tool and the condition that selects it are both stated.

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