departments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the list is not exhaustive, setting expectations about coverage, and provides context on its use. While it does not detail output format, the presence of an output schema covers that. The added limitation note goes beyond a bare statement.

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 main purpose and followed by a necessary limitation. There is zero wasted wording; each sentence adds value.

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 simple parameterless tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what it lists, that it is for use with search, and that it is non-exhaustive with a fallback. The presence of the output schema removes the need to describe return values, so the description is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it does add context about how the output (department codes) integrates with the search tool, which is meaningful for the tool's use.

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 it lists common Brown department codes and explicitly ties this to use with the search tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search or course_detail, making the purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it to obtain department codes for the search tool, and if the department is not listed, use keyword search instead. This clearly states when to use this tool and provides an alternative, satisfying the when/when-not requirement.

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