Search degree programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return fields and the id's role, but omits behavioral details such as caching (despite a refresh parameter) and search matching rules (case sensitivity, partial matches). This provides moderate transparency but leaves some important behavior unspecified.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose and key outputs are front-loaded, making it highly efficient and easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete enough for a search tool: it names the resource, provides examples, and lists return fields. It doesn't mention pagination or caching behavior, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only redundant examples (e.g., 'Informatik') and restates that search is by name, providing little additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Search TU Berlin Moses degree programs') with a specific resource and examples. It also lists the exact return fields, distinguishing it from the sibling search_modules by focusing on degree programs and noting the id is needed by get_degree_program_structure.

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?

It provides clear usage context: search by name to get program ids for use with get_degree_program_structure. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the relationship to the sibling tool is well implied. No competing alternative is mentioned, but the context is sufficient for most cases.

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