get_universities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return envelope and the case-insensitive filter behavior, which is good. However, it does not mention potential default limits, pagination, or any error conditions beyond the envelope. For a simple read tool, this 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes concise optional details. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool is simple with only two optional parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the scope (listing universities), the filtering options, and the response envelope. Since the output schema exists, the description need not detail return fields. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and name_contains) with clear descriptions. The tool description merely restates these options without adding new semantic information, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 'List universities in the YOK ATLAS preference guide' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_university_cities and get_university_programs by focusing on universities themselves, and from search_university_programs by being a list rather than a search.

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 implies usage: it lists universities with optional filters, making it clear this is for retrieving university lists. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the phrase 'in the YOK ATLAS preference guide' provide clear context. No exclusions are mentioned, but the specification is enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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