Teachers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds scope information (only messageable staff, only subjects relevant to your child), but with zero parameters it never explains which child/children the result is scoped to, which is the main behavioral ambiguity for a no-arg call. Useful context, but incomplete on the one point that matters most.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first defines the resource and payload, the second handles sibling disambiguation. The most important information (what you get) is front-loaded.

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 zero-param, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, payload, and alternatives. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't sketch the shape of the returned list (e.g., teacher fields, how many children it spans), which would help an agent plan consumption of the result.

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 has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Its scoping language ("your child") implicitly warns that output is per-child even though no parameter selects one.

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 names a concrete resource ("Teachers and other staff you can message in Somtoday") and states what data comes with it ("the subjects they teach your child"). It also explicitly routes away from the two nearest siblings, so the agent can distinguish it from children and school_info without opening any 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?

It names both alternatives and the condition that selects each: use children for mentor(s), school_info for general school contact data. That is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that statement, leaving nothing to inference.

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