Get study program info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that each call returns exactly one aspect as JSON (a per-call granularity constraint), but says nothing about error behavior or what an unknown prodi id yields.

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 core purpose and the sibling redirect are front-loaded in the first two sentences. However, the dangling fragment "Study-program aspect." is redundant filler before the enum list, which is otherwise dense and useful.

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?

With no output schema and five aspects that each return a different shape (detail vs. counts vs. tuition range), the description never indicates what fields or structure to expect. Enough to invoke, but not enough to interpret results confidently.

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 50% — id_prodi is documented in the schema, but aspect has no schema description. The description compensates by defining all five enum values, though several definitions are terse restatements ("detail — Get study program detail").

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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one aspect of a single study program) and explicitly enumerates the five aspect values, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It also names the sibling get_study_program_lecturers for the related-but-different roster data.

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 routes lecturer-roster needs to get_study_program_lecturers, which is a clear alternative/exclusion. It doesn't contrast with search_pddikti or get_university_study_programs, but the aspect enum effectively communicates what each call is for.

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