List study programs by field

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a modest amount beyond that ('Returns a JSON list', 'Needs no id') but says nothing about result volume, completeness of the nationwide set, or ordering.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the enum glossary is dense but earns its space. Minor waste: 'field of study (bidang ilmu)' is restated as its own sentence, duplicating the opening parenthetical.

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?

A single-required-enum, read-only tool with a stated return type ('a JSON list') and every enum value translated. With no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs; only result shape detail would improve it marginally.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning and it does: it glosses the Indonesian enum terms in English (agama=religion, teknik=engineering, etc.), which the raw enum does not. It only falls short of 5 because the same single parameter is described twice.

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 study programs') plus a scope qualifier ('nationwide for one field of study') that implicitly separates it from the university-scoped sibling get_university_study_programs. It does not name a sibling outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'for discovering which programs exist in a discipline' and 'Needs no id' give a clear use context and implicitly contrast with the id-based lookup tools. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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