list_tutors

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

The description contributes no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. It does not disclose pagination defaults, authorization needs, or the subtle published-versus-staff filtering behavior; the rich filtering semantics live only in the parameter schema, not in the description.

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?

At two words, the description is certainly short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no front-loaded scoping, no behavior, and no value beyond the tool name itself, so it fails the 'every word earns its place' test.

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?

The overall tool definition is somewhat rescued by the annotations, a rich parameter schema, and an output schema, all of which reduce the burden on the description. Still, the description leaves out the core context of what list_tutors returns and when to choose it over siblings, making it minimally adequate but not complete.

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 100%, and the is_published parameter is documented in unusual detail, including what `true` and `false` mean and what happens when the parameter is omitted. The description adds nothing to parameter understanding, but the schema is self-sufficient, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'List Tutors' exactly restates the tool name and title, making it a tautology rather than a purpose statement. It identifies a verb and a resource but gives no scope, such as whether this returns all staff or only published tutors, and it does not distinguish itself from get_tutor, recommend_tutors, or coverage_tutors.

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?

There is no guidance in the description about when to use this tool versus any sibling list/get/recommend tool. The is_published parameter schema hints at public tutor grid use, but that context is embedded in the schema, not in the tool description, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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