jcourse_get_teacher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the set of fields returned, which is mild extra value but partly redundant with the output schema; it does not discuss error behavior for invalid IDs or rate limits.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the payload fields; there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.

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 simple read-only lookup with a single fully documented parameter, complete annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling routing guidance.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, with the schema already documenting it as a positive integer platform object ID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond identifying that a teacher is being looked up, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb (读取/read) with a specific resource (教师详情/teacher details) and enumerates the returned fields (name, code, department, title, webpage link), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from search_teachers or list_teacher_courses, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required teacher_id parameter suggests an ID-based detail lookup versus the search-style siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of jcourse_search_teachers or jcourse_list_teacher_courses, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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