search_teachers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'fuzzy' matching, which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose typical search behaviors such as read-only nature, result ordering, pagination, or behavior when no matches are found. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous words. It is concise and efficient, conveying the essential information without waste.

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 search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It conveys the core functionality but omits details like result format, pagination, or any caveats about fuzzy matching. Given the many sibling tools, a bit more context on when this is the right search could be beneficial, but it is not critically incomplete for a basic search operation.

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 both parameters. It implicitly explains the 'query' parameter as a fuzzy full-name search, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter (default 20) at all. This leaves a gap in understanding how to control the number of results, making the description only partially helpful.

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 ('Find'), a specific resource ('BMSTU teachers'), and the method ('fuzzy full-name search'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_departments and get_teacher_profile, so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 the tool is used when you need to find teachers by name, and the 'fuzzy' qualifier indicates it handles partial or approximate matches. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this is the right choice among siblings.

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