getPrograms

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get programs' with no mention of read-only semantics, return format, pagination, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Get'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, but it is also extremely terse and could arguably provide a bit more useful structure without harming conciseness.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what a 'program' is and what the response contains. It does not. Also, the meaning of the scheduleType parameter and its expected values are left entirely unexplained, making the tool under-specified for correct invocation.

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 50% of parameters (onlineOnly has a description, scheduleType only has an enum). The description does not mention either parameter or their meaning, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps. For example, it does not explain how scheduleType affects the 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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Get programs') with illustrative examples (yoga, pilates), making its purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like getClasses or getServices, which could overlap with 'programs'.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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