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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, so the description's added value is the endpoint character: public (no auth), English natural-language results, and preservation of sources, conditions and pagination. That is genuine disclosure beyond the annotations, though pagination mechanics and rate/limit behavior remain unstated.

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, purpose front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct fact (scope, default inclusiveness, detail routing, endpoint character). The final sentence stacks three ideas (language, sources, pagination) but is still readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return-shape essentials: class summaries are discovery-only, results are English natural-language text preserving sources and pagination. Combined with the detail-tool routing, an agent has enough to call and interpret this correctly, missing only parameter-level detail.

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 only 33% (locale and hasUpcomingClasses are documented in-schema; page, pageSize, keyword, state are not). The description ties keyword and state to the search behavior, but adds no format, default, or range guidance for page/pageSize, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus a precise resource (published short courses/work certificates) and the two primary dimensions (keyword, state). It also names the complementary sibling, get_short_course, so an agent can tell discovery from detail lookup without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes detail-level questions ('recommending a specific date or fee') to get_short_course, and notes the default inclusion of courses without providers/upcoming classes unless filtered. It stops short of stating when-not to use it relative to the other search siblings (search_courses, get_similar_courses).

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