Instructor profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior by explaining that `rating_stats` is a review-count-weighted average over at most 100 of the instructor's courses, tied to `courses_rated` — useful but limited to one field; nothing about pagination, caching, or failure modes for an unknown slug.

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 tight paragraphs with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. The second paragraph packs several facts into terse backticked clauses, which is efficient but slightly dense for a reader skimming for guidance.

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 available, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: it names the profile fields and explains the derived `rating_stats` calculation and its 100-course cap. It stops short of describing the shape of the embedded course list beyond pointing at fr_search_courses card parity.

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 100%, including enum and range details for sort, limit, and free, so the baseline is 3. The description's slug provenance note largely repeats the schema's own slug description and adds no new filtering or sorting 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a Faradars instructor's profile and their courses") and enumerates the profile fields returned (field, university, students, total hours), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It separates itself from fr_instructors only indirectly, by naming it as the source of the slug rather than explicitly declaring itself the single-instructor detail view.

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?

Provides concrete routing: get `slug` from fr_instructors or fr_course, note that course cards match fr_search_courses, and call fr_course for per-course detail. That chains the sibling tools usefully, though it gives no explicit "do not use this if you only need course listings" exclusion.

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