get_program_detailsFull details for a single program by its Junely id (from search results): description, dates, ages, price, current enrollment status, and the provider’s info + registration links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Program id from a search result |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing contents, which is adequate but not rich.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope without any wasted words or tangential information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, read-only, no output schema), the description lists all key return components (description, dates, ages, etc.), but lacks details on error handling or format, leaving minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and the description restates the schema's description for the only parameter 'id'. No additional meaning is provided, meeting the baseline for high 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 description uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('program by Junely id') and lists included fields, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_programs (which returns a list) and save_camp (which mutates).
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 states the tool is for a single program 'from search results', implying post-search usage. However, it does not explicitly exclude other contexts or mention when-not-to-use, though sibling tools provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get details, save to watchlist, search, set alerts, and view open programs. No overlapping functionality that could cause confusion for an agent.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_program_details, search_programs, watch_program), but 'whats_open' breaks the convention (no underscore, abbreviation) and 'save_camp' uses 'camp' while others use 'program', introducing inconsistency.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a camps and after-school discovery service. Each tool earns its place and covers the core user workflow without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The set covers search, details, saving, alerts, and open availability—core tasks. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to remove from watchlist or cancel alerts, but the main lifecycle is addressed.