Get lecturer info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is JSON scoped to one aspect; it says nothing about missing-record behavior, error cases, or payload shape for a network-backed lookup.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and the aspect list is useful, but the fragment "Lecturer aspect." is filler and several list entries restate the enum tautologically ("teaching-history — Get lecturer teaching history"). Roughly a third of the text adds no information.

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?

With two required params and full annotation coverage, the definition is callable as written, but with no output schema the description never indicates what an aspect payload contains (fields, pagination for portfolio aspects like karya/paten). An agent can invoke it but cannot anticipate result structure.

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 50%: id_dosen is documented in the schema, but the aspect enum has bare values. The description compensates well by glossing each enum member in English (penelitian = research portfolio, pengabdian = service portfolio, karya, paten), which is real added meaning over the raw enum.

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 ("Fetch one aspect of a single lecturer") and enumerates the seven aspects, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_university_lecturers or get_study_program_lecturers, which is the only missing piece.

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: fetch a single lecturer's detail by aspect, as opposed to the list-style siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention that id_dosen must come from a prior search_pddikti call (that constraint lives only in the schema).

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