TeachersGetDetail

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false cover the safety profile, so no contradiction exists. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema, only clarifying that it retrieves a single teacher by id, which is already implied by the parameter name. No extra traits (e.g., not-found behavior, auth requirements) are disclosed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the lookup method efficiently, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not specify the return shape or error handling, but those are not required when no output schema exists. The only minor gap is the lack of guidance about the optional teacherId behavior.

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 100%, but the parameter description ('integer (optional)') adds little meaning. The tool description clarifies that the parameter is the teacher identifier, yet the property name 'teacherId' already conveys this. The description does not explain what happens when the optional parameter is omitted, so it adds only marginal value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('details of a single teacher'), and a clear access path ('by id'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like TeachersGetList (which returns a list) and TeachersCreate/Update/Delete (which mutate). No ambiguity remains.

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 usage when a single teacher's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as TeachersGetList, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no direct comparison to siblings.

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