get_teacher_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return content but does not explicitly state that it's a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or how errors (e.g., invalid teacher_id) are handled. This is a moderate gap for a 'get' tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value: first states action and parameter, second details return structure and ID sourcing. No redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input source and return shape. It omits error behavior and auth prerequisites, which would elevate it to fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining that teacher_id must be a 'numeric profile ID' and that IDs come from specific endpoints. This adds actionable meaning beyond the bare 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 explicitly states 'Get information about a teacher' and specifies the resource (by numeric profile ID) plus the exact return data (full name, degree/rank, positions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_profile and get_subject_info.

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 provides concrete guidance on when to use by explaining that teacher IDs are available from list_tasks, get_task, and list_materials results. It does not explicitly compare alternatives, but the tool's purpose is unique enough that this is sufficient context.

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