get_teacher_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds that the tool returns direct links to schedule, staff page, and publication repository, which is useful behavioral context beyond safety. It does not mention error behavior or how partial matches are handled.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second specifies accepted input formats. Every clause carries information and there is no redundancy or 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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough: it defines the returned data and input formats. It lacks guidance on ambiguity resolution (e.g., multiple teachers matching a surname) or output shape, but given no output schema and simple annotations, the remaining gap is minor.

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 parameter description already lists the accepted formats (surname, full name, urlId) with examples. The description repeats these examples but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource – retrieving a detailed profile card for a BSUIR teacher – and enumerates exactly what the card contains (contact info, position, degree, courses, links). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_teacher_schedule or search_teachers.

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 implied by the purpose: use when you need a teacher's profile. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like search_teachers or get_teacher_schedule, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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