List teachers

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world aspects, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds useful behavioral context: query matches name fragments or timetable abbreviations, and results expose a recipient_id. It doesn't mention pagination or auth, but for a simple read-only list with an output schema, this is adequate.

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 core function and scope come first, followed by filter semantics, then the actionable recipient_id link. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, filtering, and the send_message use case, and an output schema exists so return values are documented elsewhere. The only notable gap is that school is optional in the schema while the description implies a school context is needed, which could confuse an agent deciding whether to omit it. Overall this is nearly complete for a read-only list tool.

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 property descriptions are 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It defines query as 'part of a name, or the abbreviation used in the timetable' and the 'by subdomain or a student's name' parenthetical gives meaning to the school parameter. The phrasing is slightly ambiguous about school, but both parameters receive substantive semantic grounding.

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 and resource ('Teachers at a school'), adds scope detail ('by subdomain or a student's name'), and explains the query filter. It also ties the tool to send_message via recipient_id, which distinguishes it from the sibling getters. This is far above a bare 'List teachers' tautology.

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 recipient_id note gives a clear downstream use case: call this before send_message when you need a teacher recipient. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since this is the only teacher-listing tool among siblings, the routing context is strong enough.

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