faculty_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about result limits, pagination, total-count behavior when both filters are omitted, or whether matching is exact or fuzzy — all relevant for a zero-required-parameter search.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the filtering capability immediately following. Nothing is padded, though the extremely short length is partly the source of the transparency gaps.

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 two-parameter, all-optional read tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose and filter intent. With no output schema, however, an agent gets no hint about what a result entry contains or how large the result set may be.

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%, with examples (理学院, 工学院) and match fields (姓名/英文名/学科/实验室) already documented in the schema. The description restates the two filters without adding syntax, defaults, or matching semantics, so it meets the baseline only.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource, 教师名录检索 (search the faculty directory), which is unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling tool, though no sibling actually competes for the faculty-directory resource, so the omission is minor.

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 parenthetical 可按学院或关键词过滤 implies both filters are optional and can be combined, which is real but implicit usage guidance. There is no statement of when to use this versus other search tools (e.g. program_course_search, instrument_search) and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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