get_university_programs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope ({ok, data, error, disclaimer}), filter behavior (case-insensitive substring, ASCII score type spellings), and the optional limit. The 'List' verb implies a read-only operation. It does not discuss error conditions or rate limits, but for a listing tool this is adequate.

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-loads the main purpose, and includes only essential details (examples, filters, envelope). Zero wasted words.

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 has three optional parameters, an output schema, and sibling tools. The description covers the core behavior, filter semantics, and return envelope. It is complete for a read-only listing tool, but could be enhanced by mentioning how it relates to 'search_university_programs'.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minor clarifications like 'case-insensitive substring' and 'cap the number of results', but these largely repeat what the schema says. Baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool lists YOK ATLAS program groups with a concrete example ('Bilgisayar Muhendisligi'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_university_programs', but the verb 'List' plus resource makes the primary purpose clear.

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 through its clear listing and filter capabilities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_university_programs' or other alternatives. There are no exclusions or 'when not to use' statements.

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