search_associate_degree_programs

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 smart features like fuzzy matching, partial matching, normalization, and validation, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). It adequately covers search behavior but lacks broader operational context.

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 with sections for smart features, parameters, and a note, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 19 parameters. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., parameter explanations partially repeat schema descriptions), and the note about TYT scores could be more integrated.

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 the complexity (19 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, key parameters, and smart features, and the output schema handles return values. However, it doesn't fully address all parameters or provide usage examples, leaving some gaps for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 42% (low), but the description compensates by listing and briefly explaining 7 key parameters (university, program, city, university_type, fee_type, education_type, results_limit) with examples. It adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping them and noting smart features like fuzzy/partial matching. However, it doesn't cover all 19 parameters, leaving some undocumented (e.g., yop_kodu, ust_puan).

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 purpose: 'Search for associate degree (önlisans) programs with smart fuzzy matching and user-friendly parameters.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('associate degree programs'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on associate degrees versus bachelor degrees in sibling tools like 'search_bachelor_degree_programs'.

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 for when to use this tool: for searching associate degree programs, with a note that they use TYT scores, not SAY/EA/SOZ/DIL like bachelor programs. This implicitly distinguishes it from 'search_bachelor_degree_programs', but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_associate_degree_atlas_details' for detailed information.

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