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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and closed-world scope, so the description only needs to add context, which it does: a broad list deliberately leaves bios out while a name-narrowed call includes them, and teachers may span studios. It stops short of describing pagination, ordering, or exactly which fields each teacher record carries.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: the first states the resource and its payload, the second states the filter's behavioral effect, the third redirects to the correct sibling tool. Nothing repeats the schema or the title.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema and read-only annotations, the definition covers what the agent needs to call it correctly and to anticipate that bios appear only when filtering. The residual gap is minor: the shape of the returned teacher records and any result limits are 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 single parameter is already documented as 'part of a teacher's name', so the baseline is met. The description still adds real meaning by tying the name filter to a behavioral consequence: only a narrowed query returns bios, so the parameter controls both matching and response richness.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: it lists the teachers currently teaching at Yoga Dublin plus what each teaches, which is more precise than the title 'Teachers'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from yoga_dublin_classes and yoga_dublin_studios by framing the resource as people rather than sessions or venues.

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?

Explicit routing is given in both directions: pass a name to read a bio, and use yoga_dublin_schedule to find who teaches where, because a teacher is not tied to one studio. That is a concrete when-to-use and when-to-use-a-sibling rule rather than an implied one.

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