jcourse_search_teachers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond annotations, because it does not cover pagination, combination of filters, result limits, or authentication.

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?

It is one short sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the return fields, with no wasted wording. It is tight, though possibly too tight for a tool with five parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is not strictly needed, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, with two of the five parameters undocumented in the schema and no notes on pagination or filter combination, the description is only minimally adequate.

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 60%: q, page and page_size are documented in the schema, while title and department have no description. The mention of 院系 and 职称 in the return-field list only weakly hints that these are filterable, so this falls in the baseline range.

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 names a specific verb pair (搜索/筛选) and the resource (教师), and it enumerates the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings such as jcourse_get_teacher or jcourse_get_teacher_filters.

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 on when to use this instead of jcourse_get_teacher (single lookup) or jcourse_get_teacher_filters (available filter values). A reader must infer usage from the verb alone.

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