Get Teachers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the fallback role and the deliberately omitted course-teacher association, which prevents misuse. It stops short of saying anything about the response shape beyond the field list, but the output schema covers that.

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 tight sentences: purpose, payload contents, then the routing rule, with the most decision-relevant constraint placed early. No filler, though the fallback framing is restated slightly in the first and last sentence.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide whether to call it: what it returns, what it omits, and which sibling should be tried first.

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 term_id parameter is fully documented with a pattern and example in the schema. The description only implies term scoping via 'for a term', so it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides — baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('get all teachers for a term'), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly excludes course-teacher mapping. It is unmistakable against the sibling get-course-people.

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 names the preferred alternative (get-course-people) and gives the exact conditions for falling back ('only if get-course-people fails or you need the full roster'). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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