List Purdue academic terms

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 reveals ordering ('newest first'), content ('codes and date ranges'), and data source ('Purdue.io community catalog mirror'). However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or what happens when the 'limit' parameter is omitted (e.g., returns all terms). The description gives useful context but is not exhaustive.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how to use the output, and the source. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: output content, ordering, and linkage to other tools. It does not detail the return format or pagination, but for a straightforward listing tool, the description is largely complete.

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% (the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned in the description). The description must compensate for low coverage, but it fails to explain the parameter's purpose, behavior, or effect. The schema itself provides min/max, but the description adds no value beyond that.

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 verb ('list'), the resource ('Purdue academic terms'), and the specifics: 'Every term in the Purdue course catalog, newest first, with codes and date ranges.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'banner_terms' by naming the source (Purdue.io) and indicating its use with other course 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 explicit guidance: 'Use the code with the other course tools,' which tells the agent when to use this tool (to obtain term codes for subsequent course-related tools). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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