get_teacher_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), potential empty results, rate limits, or the nature of 'source' reviews. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the operation name.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and mentions relevant output details (dates and links). It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 tool with four parameters (including an ambiguous 'kind'), no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is grossly incomplete. It leaves unanswered questions about parameter semantics, return format, pagination, and error conditions, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The schema names (teacher_id, kind, limit, offset) are partially self-explanatory, but 'kind' is ambiguous and none are explained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action (get), resource (teacher reviews), and key attributes (dates and Studizba links). It distinguishes implicitly from get_teacher_profile (profile vs reviews) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_reviews or get_new_reviews.

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 alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context such as 'use for a specific teacher when you need aggregated reviews' vs search_reviews for keyword-based retrieval. The agent is left to infer usage.

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