compare_teachers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool compares teachers on metrics, but doesn't disclose what metrics are available, whether comparison is aggregated or per-entity, how results are formatted, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a comparison tool.

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 a single concise sentence, which is good for readability, but it is so terse that it omits essential details. It's not wordy, but under-specification is not conciseness. A slightly longer description with key details would be better.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (optional metrics, required teacher list) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify what metrics are supported, what output the agent can expect, or edge cases like comparing a single teacher. The agent would need to guess or test to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not mention teacher_ids or metrics at all. The agent is left without any indication of valid metric names, required format for teacher IDs, or constraints like minimum number of teachers. The description adds no value over the schema.

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 states the verb 'compare' with resource 'teachers' and adds 'on independent metrics', which conveys the core function. It distinguishes from rank_teachers by implying side-by-side comparison, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus rank_teachers, search_teachers, or get_teacher_analytics. The description doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent would have to infer that this is for direct comparison of specific teachers.

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