Преподаватели

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable domain context by explaining that the «Статус в РВ» = validated means FNS rights are confirmed and payments are possible.

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 short and efficient: one front-loaded sentence stating the resource and its key fields, followed by one sentence clarifying an important status value. No filler or duplication with the title or schema.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, relevant fields, and the meaning of a critical status. It does not detail the exact output shape or default behavior, but that is not a major gap for this simple endpoint.

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 input schema already documents the single optional 'q' parameter as a filter by name or phone, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a list of teachers and names the key content: rates, workload, and payment readiness via Рокет Ворк. It is distinct from get_teacher or list_students, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool by stating what data it provides, especially payment readiness. However, it does not give explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like list_students or get_teacher, nor any exclusions.

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