get_associate_degree_atlas_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information is returned (comprehensive details including multiple categories) which is helpful, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter documentation and return value details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The bulleted list of return categories is efficient and informative.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values. It provides a comprehensive overview of what information is returned through the bulleted list. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about how the tool operates, potential limitations, or error handling.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by providing examples ('e.g., 2024, 2023') and clarifying that yop_kodu is a 'unique identifier for the associate degree program' - though similar information exists in the schema. The description also provides context about what the parameters enable (getting data for a specific program in a specific year).

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 specific action ('Get comprehensive details'), resource ('associate degree program from YOKATLAS Atlas'), and scope ('specific associate degree program'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying associate degree programs (vs. bachelor degree tools) and details retrieval (vs. search tools).

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?

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (to get comprehensive details for a specific associate degree program when you have the YÖP code and year). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the search_associate_degree_programs tool for when you don't have the specific code.

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