search_bachelor_degree_programs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes smart matching features (fuzzy, partial) and intelligent parameter normalization, which are valuable behavioral insights. However, it doesn't disclose important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'search' implies it likely is).

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 clear sections (overview, smart features, parameters). It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with many parameters. Some redundancy exists between the parameter explanations and schema descriptions, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

For a complex tool with 17 parameters, 53% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining the core functionality and primary parameters. However, it doesn't address the many additional parameters in the schema (uni_adi, program_adi, etc.), and while an output schema exists, the description provides no context about result format or structure.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 53%, the description compensates well by listing and briefly explaining all 8 primary parameters with practical examples. It clarifies matching behavior for university, program, and city parameters, and explains the purpose of results_limit. However, it doesn't cover the 9 additional parameters (uni_adi, program_adi, etc.) that appear in 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 searches for bachelor's degree programs with specific smart features. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on bachelor's degrees (vs. associate degrees in siblings), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_bachelor_degree_atlas_details' which appears to be a detail retrieval tool rather than a search tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_bachelor_degree_atlas_details' or 'search_associate_degree_programs'. It mentions smart features but doesn't explain when these features are beneficial or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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