get_program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about the nature of the returned content and the prerequisite lookup via list_programs. No contradictions with 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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose and return content are front-loaded, followed by a useful prerequisite hint. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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 simple read-only getter with three well-documented required parameters, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and what is needed to call it. There is no output schema, but the described return content ('details for a single USC program... including program-specific notes') is enough for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already carries most of the semantic weight. The description only restates that school and program prefixes are required and points to list_programs for discovery, adding little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 says the tool gets details for a single USC program in a term and calls out program-specific notes such as enrollment or D-clearance instructions. The 'single program' scope distinguishes it from list_programs and other listing tools. The resource and verb are specific and unambiguous.

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: use this for a single program's details rather than for listing programs. It also gives practical guidance by pointing to list_programs for finding the required school prefix. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough.

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