Карточка преподавателя

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the data fields (rate, contacts, etc.) but provides no additional behavioral traits like response format or limitations. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds modest value beyond them.

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 very concise: two sentences, the second being a directive to a sibling tool. Every word adds value, and the critical purpose is stated first. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It lists the main data points and identifies a related tool for a specific sub-case. It does not specify the return format, but that is minor for a simple get operation. Overall, an agent can confidently call this tool based on the description.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter teacher_id as 'id преподавателя' with exclusiveMinimum>0, giving the agent sufficient meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter context, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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 states it provides a teacher card with specific fields (rate, contacts, self-employed status, availability), clearly indicating it retrieves a single teacher's details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_trial_scores, though it does not contrast with list_teachers, which is a likely sibling for listing teachers. The purpose is clear and specific.

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?

The description gives a partial usage guideline by directing users away from this tool for trial scores to list_trial_scores. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_teachers (e.g., when you need details for a specific teacher rather than a list). The context implies it is for single-teacher details, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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