ic_list_teachers

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it combines two endpoints, notes that response field shapes vary by district, and states which core fields are consistent (firstName, lastName, email). This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent set expectations for the response.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides essential context about endpoints and response variance. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives sufficient context: it states the purpose, notes the combined endpoints, and warns about district variance with a consistent core. It does not describe pagination or sorting, but these are likely irrelevant for this simple list. Given the low schema coverage, it could do more, but it provides enough to use the tool correctly for the common case.

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 low at 33% (only 'view' has a description), and the tool description does not compensate for the undocumented 'district' and 'studentId' parameters. It merely implies studentId identifies the student but gives no format or guidance for district. The 'view' parameter is well-covered in the schema, but the other two are left unexplained, so the description fails to add meaningful parameter semantics.

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 (List), resource (a student's teachers and counselors), and specifies it is per enrolled section. It also mentions the two endpoints combined, distinguishing it from sibling list tools that target different domains (assessments, fees, etc.). No ambiguity remains about the tool's core function.

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 purpose is specific enough to imply when to use it: whenever a student's teachers or counselors are needed. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling tools cover distinct domains, making confusion unlikely. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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