program_overview

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does add one useful behavioral fact: the data comes from the public admissions site, so it is a safe public read. It says nothing about return size, structure, or whether content is cached or complete.

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 compact sentence with the subject front-loaded and no filler. It is telegraphic to the point of being slightly terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, this is close to adequate, but it leaves what the response actually contains as prose content versus structured fields unspecified.

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 parameter is fully documented with an enum and default in the schema. The description's 'lang=zh/en' merely repeats the enum, adding no extra meaning.

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 specific resource: undergraduate education philosophy, training objectives, and eight training features. That is meaningfully distinct from the curriculum/majors/courses siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (program_curriculum, program_majors, program_plan) that an agent must choose between. The content scope implies the overview role, but selection is left entirely to inference.

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