ic_list_teachers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it merges two upstream endpoints (section/contacts and studentCounselor/byUser), and it warns that response field shapes vary by district while core fields are stable. That variability warning is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads purpose, the second carries the merged-endpoint and field-variability caveat. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully pre-announces response shape variability and core fields. Combined with read-only annotations this is close to complete; only the district and studentId parameters are left unexplained.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no meaning for district or studentId beyond implying 'a student's' identity. The one documented parameter (view) is thoroughly explained in the schema itself, so the description neither helps nor compensates for the two undocumented required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a student's teachers... and assigned counselor(s)') and scopes it to enrolled sections. No sibling tool (ic_list_students, ic_get_schedule, etc.) covers teachers/counselors, so an agent can distinguish it on the resource alone without opening a 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?

Usage is only implied: the required district/studentId make clear it is a per-student lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings such as ic_list_students or ic_get_schedule. Nothing misleading, but nothing that routes the agent either.

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