get_term

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds the return-value contract (season, year, status, activation date), which is meaningful behavior context given there is no output schema. No contradiction 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose, method, and example are front-loaded in sentence one; the return fields, critical since no output schema exists, are in sentence two. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with comprehensive annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description is complete: it states the input format, gives a concrete example, and discloses the return fields in the absence of an output schema. Error-case behavior is not described, but openWorldHint already signals partial/missing data is possible.

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 the termCode format, the pattern, and the list_terms discovery path. The description reinforces the example (20263 = Fall 2026) but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('details for a single academic term'), and the identification mechanism (numeric termCode) with a concrete example (20263 = Fall 2026). The singular 'single' clearly differentiates it from the list_* siblings like list_terms.

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 implies the usage context: use when you have a termCode and need details for one term. The schema's parameter description explicitly routes code discovery to list_terms ('Use list_terms to discover codes'), providing an articulated alternative for the related scenario. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.

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