Find instructors

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds real behavior: what fields come back (slug, course count, student count, degree) and that the category mode returns a top-5 style leaderboard. The added nuance that `query` filters courses rather than instructors in category mode is genuinely non-obvious.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability and return fields, then the mode interaction, then the hand-off to fr_instructor. Slightly dense in the middle sentence but no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and clarifying the category-mode semantics. Pagination and empty-result behavior are left implicit, a minor gap for a read-only discovery tool with complete annotations.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining the interaction between `category` and `query` (category picks the people, query narrows their courses), which the schema does not spell out. `page`/`limit` are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Find Faradars instructors') plus the two distinct modes (by name, or leading instructors of a category). It is clearly separable from the sibling fr_instructor, which the description frames as the deeper-detail follow-up.

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?

It states the selection logic for the two modes (name search vs. category leaderboard) and explicitly routes the agent to fr_instructor once a slug is known. It does not say when to prefer this over fr_search_courses, so the sibling mapping is not fully exhaustive.

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