list_terms

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the output contents (season, year, term code, status) and providing a concrete termCode example. It does not contradict 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 tightly written sentences: the first states purpose and output fields, the second gives a concrete usage example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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, parameterless listing tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It explains the returned fields, gives an example of termCode semantics, and leaves no obvious gap an agent would need to call 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema contributes little. The description compensates by explaining what terms contain and how termCode is used, which gives an agent the semantic context needed to interpret results.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('USC academic terms available in the course catalog'), and specifies the returned fields (season, year, term code, status). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_term by describing a collection-level listing operation.

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 context: 'Use this to find the termCode for a given semester (e.g. 20263 = Fall 2026).' This tells an agent when invoking this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast it with get_term or other alternatives, but the use case is clear enough for a parameterless enumeration tool.

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