search_university_programs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields (university, program, quota, fee, scholarship, cutoff), pagination, and the standard envelope {ok, data, error, disclaimer}. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but as a read-oriented search tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably complete and non-contradictory.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then prerequisites, then return behavior. Every sentence adds essential information with no filler or repetition of schema details that aren't relevant to decision-making.

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 complexity (16 optional parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential context: what the tool is, how it relates to siblings, what prerequisites exist, what it returns, and the response envelope. The detailed schema handles parameter specifics, so the description is appropriately complete.

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% with each parameter already described in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explicitly stating that university_ids, program_group_ids, and city_codes must be resolved via sibling tools and that the tool does no name lookups—clarifying why these parameters are needed and how they relate to the rest of the system.

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 identifies the tool as the core preference-search endpoint for YOK ATLAS program placements, using a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('program placements'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling lookup tools by stating that ID resolution must happen via get_universities, get_university_programs, and get_university_cities first.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent which prerequisites must be met before calling (university_ids, program_group_ids, city_codes resolved via three named sibling tools) and notes that this tool does not do name lookups. This gives concrete when-to-use guidance and steers the agent toward alternatives when name-based search is needed.

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