Get university study programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return shape ('Returns a JSON list') and the intended downstream chaining, though it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens when a university has no programs in that semester.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the follow-up call and the return type. Nothing is redundant and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool yields ('a JSON list' of programs with ids) and how to continue. It would be stronger if it hinted at the per-program fields beyond id or at empty-result behavior, but nothing critical for a correct call is missing.

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%: id_pt is documented as an opaque id copied from search_pddikti results and semester as a YYYYS pattern code. The description only reinforces the semester framing ('in one semester') and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List every study program (prodi) a university offered in one semester') and adds a scope qualifier (per university, per semester). It also distinguishes itself from the detail sibling by naming get_study_program as the follow-up for a single program's details.

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?

Gives a clear usage context — this is the listing step before calling get_study_program with a returned prodi id — which is explicit chaining guidance an agent can act on. It stops short of distinguishing itself from sibling listing tools such as list_study_programs_by_field or get_university, so no explicit exclusion is offered.

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