list_ge_requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail about how results are grouped and structured, including an example of requirement/category prefixes. 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action, then efficiently explains the return structure and the downstream use of prefixes. Every sentence contributes non-redundant, decision-relevant 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?

With only one parameter and full schema coverage, the description explains the return shape well: requirement eras, prefixes, category prefixes, and an example. Since there is no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to use the result with list_courses_by_ge.

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 only parameter, termCode, is fully documented in the schema with format, example, and a pointer to list_terms. The description adds little beyond restating that the tool works for a term, so the schema carries the weight and the baseline of 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?

Clearly states it lists USC General Education (GE) requirements for a term, naming the specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from course-listing siblings by describing the returned GE structure, eras, and category prefixes, making its purpose 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?

Provides clear context by indicating the tool takes a term code and returns GE structure grouped by era, plus an explicit pointer to use the returned prefixes with list_courses_by_ge. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives like get_ge_category_details, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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