program_majors

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the content is public admissions-site data, implying static read-only reference material, but never states that it is a read-only lookup, whether results are cached, or how complete/fresh the 8-major list is.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the scope and count up front and the data provenance in a short parenthetical; nothing is padded. It is compact enough that no trimming is needed.

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 lookup with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers what data exists but not what a per-major record contains (degree type, duration, department), forcing the agent to call blind. It is adequate but has a visible gap.

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% and the single 'lang' enum parameter is already documented as '站点语言，默认 zh'. The description adds nothing about language behavior (e.g. whether titles are translated), so baseline 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?

The description names the resource precisely ('本科专业设置', 8 majors in 理学/工学/医学) and its two views (total overview plus per-major introductions), so an agent knows what data it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling program_overview, leaving overlap ambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description lets an agent infer this is the place to look up which majors exist, but gives no explicit when-to-use rule and no exclusion such as 'use program_curriculum for course requirements'. With four sibling program_* tools present, that routing guidance is missing.

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