list_faculties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output is 'code + name' with no mention of ordering, pagination, error behavior, default institution behavior, or whether institution filters or returns all when null.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the core purpose efficiently, though it could afford slightly more detail given how short it is.

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?

There is an output schema present, which covers return values. The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter, but with 0% schema coverage and a poorly documented parameter, the absence of any explanation of the institution semantics leaves a meaningful gap for a fairly fundamental filtering behavior.

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% and the schema itself only declares a nullable 'institution' with default null. The description does not explain what the institution parameter filters by, what null means (all institutions?), or the format of the institution value needed. The low coverage means the description should compensate but doesn't.

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?

'List faculties (code + name)' uses a clear verb and resource with output detail. It implies a simple listing tool but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like list_courses, get_categories, or get_available_years, though the distinct resource (faculties) provides some differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The optional 'institution' parameter hints at scoping but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, nor exclusions or relationship to sibling tools like list_courses which may depend on faculty selection.

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