list_ilt_instructors

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses that results contain personal data, that a separate CSA_SKILLJAR_V1_API_KEY credential is required, and what filter_provider/filter_email do. This gives an agent behavior-critical context that the annotations and schema do not provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and every subsequent sentence adds needed context: data sensitivity, filter semantics, the instructor_email resolution use case, and the authentication requirement. There is no filler.

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 read-only list with an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what is listed, what fields to expect, how to filter, and what credential is needed. The only soft spot is that pagination parameters are not mentioned, but their names are standard and the schema marks them optional.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the parameter-documentation burden. It does define filter_provider with concrete values and filter_email, but it says nothing about page or page_size, so the compensation is only partial.

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 pair: 'List the people who teach instructor-led sessions,' which immediately separates it from session-oriented siblings like list_ilt_sessions. It also clarifies the returned entity (instructors, not learners) and the resolving role of instructor_email, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives a concrete use case — resolving a session's instructor_email into a name — and explains the two filters for picking a person or provider. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over list_ilt_sessions.

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