list_subjects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about catalog records versus current offerings, but it does not describe return shape, auth needs, or other behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds a relevant scope clarification without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and catalog-vs-offering scope adequately. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the default campus or that the result is a list of subject codes, but the essential context is present.

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?

There is only one parameter, campus, with enum values UBCV/UBCO and a default of UBCV, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'for a campus' without explaining the enum values, default, or effect of choosing a campus, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List official Calendar subject codes for a campus.' It also clarifies scope by stating courses are catalog records rather than current offerings, which helps distinguish it from offering-search tools, though it does not name a specific sibling.

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 note that courses are 'catalog records, not current offerings' implies the tool is for catalog subject lookup rather than live section search, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus search_courses or another sibling.

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