Look Up Instructor Ratings

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: returns every matching profile, sorts by vote count, and provides a vote-weighted combined score due to duplicate profiles. This adds meaningful information beyond the output schema, though it omits details like empty-result behavior or potential rate limits.

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 three sentences, each adding substantive value: purpose, output behavior, and authentication need. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundant phrasing, making it appropriately concise.

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 an output schema present, return values are already structured, so the description need not repeat them. However, the absence of explanations for 'comment_limit' and 'include_comments', plus no guidance on alternatives to sibling tools, leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly. The description is adequate for the core purpose but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It explains the 'names' parameter implicitly via 'several instructor names (as printed in the OBS schedule)', which is helpful. However, it does not mention 'comment_limit' or 'include_comments' at all, leaving two of the three parameters semantically uncovered.

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 tool resolves multiple instructor names to hocametre ratings, with a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('instructor names to their hocametre ratings'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hocametre_search_instructors or hocametre_get_instructor, but the batch nature and the OBS schedule context make the purpose clear.

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 useful context: names should be 'as printed in the OBS schedule' and 'No login required', which signals the intended input source and authentication expectation. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over hocametre_search_instructors or hocametre_get_instructor, nor any exclusion criteria, so alternatives are not addressed.

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