list_programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the term-scoping constraint and the shape of the returned data, which is useful but does not go into pagination or size-related behavior. This is adequate given the 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, no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, the returned fields are listed compactly, and the cross-reference to list_courses_by_program is integrated naturally. Every sentence 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 simple read-only, one-parameter listing tool, the description fully covers what it returns, how it is scoped, and why an agent would call it. The schema covers the parameter, and the description covers the output fields despite the lack of an output schema. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%: termCode is fully described with an example ('20263') and a pointer to list_terms. The description adds only the high-level notion that programs are listed 'in a term,' which does not materially extend the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all USC programs (departments/majors) in a term.' It also states the returned fields (prefix, name, school prefix(es)), and distinguishes the tool's role by naming the sibling list_courses_by_program. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this to find the school+program pair needed for list_courses_by_program,' including a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like get_program or list_schools, but the intended workflow is clear.

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