list_programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait: results are compact rows with curriculum text omitted. It stays silent on pagination behavior (despite the limit param), ordering, and permissions, so coverage is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the output shape front-loaded ahead of the filter list. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field detail is not required. For a five-parameter, zero-required list tool the description is close to sufficient, losing only a point for leaving limit and filter value syntax undocumented.

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 compensate, and it partially does by mapping four parameters (research_status, country, min_overall_fit, q) to plain-language filters. It never mentions limit, and gives no syntax or accepted values for the status filter or the fit threshold's range.

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 programs') and adds scope detail ('compact rows, no curriculum text') that distinguishes it from the singular get_program sibling. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from the name pair.

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?

'Filter by status, country, min fit, or name search' implies the common usage contexts and enumerates the filter axes. However, it gives no guidance on when to reach for a filtered list versus opening a single program with get_program, nor any exclusion criteria.

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