list_schools

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false; the description does not contradict these. It adds context about the term filter and the returned fields (prefix + programs), but does not disclose additional operational behaviors such as auth, pagination, or performance. This is useful context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 focused sentences. The first sentence carries the essential definition; the second adds mild navigation context. Nothing is redundant, though the second sentence is less information-dense than it could be.

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 one required parameter documented in the schema, robust annotations, and a description that names the core output fields, the tool is callable without further research. It lacks an output schema and does not mention empty-result behavior, but for a simple single-parameter list operation this is adequate.

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 schema covers the single termCode parameter 100% with format, an example, and a pointer to list_terms for discovering valid values. The tool description adds nothing about termCode beyond the phrase 'in a term.' Since schema description coverage is high, 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+resource: 'List all USC schools/colleges offering classes in a term' and explains the output components: prefix mapping and contained programs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programs and list_course_prefixes because the unit of the result is the school/college, not the program or prefix alone.

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?

Only generic guidance appears: 'Useful for navigating the catalog structure.' It implies a catalog-navigation use case but does not state when to choose this over list_programs or list_course_prefixes, nor give exclusion criteria. The parameter schema's pointer to list_terms is embedded in the schema, not the tool description.

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