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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it guarantees that hidden and deleted courses are never returned, and that every result carries a canonical url. It does not cover rate limits or pagination behavior, but the added constraints are valuable.

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?

Four sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and filter capabilities. No wasted words, though the last sentence about the canonical url is somewhat tangential and could be integrated more tightly.

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 search tool with 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview: domain scope, filter support, exclusion of hidden/deleted courses, and a guarantee about result URLs. It lacks detail on pagination behavior (offset/limit) and result ordering, but the schema compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only summarises filter dimensions (category, language, learning type, price) without adding syntax, default values, or edge-case semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (Search) and resource (Hosco's catalogue of hospitality courses and training programmes), with examples of domains. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like course-details-tool (which retrieves one course) and search-jobs-tool (jobs, not courses).

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 implies usage by describing supported features ('free-text query plus filters') but never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it or name a sibling. Context is implied rather than prescribed.

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