get_fee_structure

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, so it meets the lower bar set by their presence.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation), annotations covering safety and behavior, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It could improve by adding usage guidelines or parameter details, but it suffices for basic understanding in this context.

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 0%, but the description adds minimal semantic context by implying the 'program' parameter specifies an academic program. It doesn't detail format, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema's title ('Program') provides. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as it partially compensates but lacks depth.

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's purpose: 'Get fee details for a specific academic program.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('fee details'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_hostel_fees' by focusing on academic programs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools beyond the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for use, or compare it to related tools like 'get_scholarship_details' or 'get_financial_aid_office_info' for broader financial inquiries. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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