Sample four-year plan for a major

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting that calling with no argument lists majors with a published plan, which is a useful behavior beyond the schema. It doesn't contradict 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it is, when to use it, and how to invoke the no-argument behavior. The most important usage guidance is front-loaded. No 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context. It could mention what the returned plan looks like (e.g., quarters, course names), but the annotations and schema cover the safety and parameter aspects, so the gap is minor.

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 the 'program' parameter with examples. The description adds the behavior of omitting the parameter to list all, which is a meaningful addition, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema's examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a catalogue-recommended quarter-by-quarter course sequence for a major, with a specific verb ('sample', 'recommended') and resource ('four-year plan'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_program_requirements and recommend_courses by focusing on the published plan. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use it: to answer 'what should I take first year?' or to sanity-check whether a student is on track. It also gives a clear usage instruction: call with no argument to list majors with a published plan. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools.

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