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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: what results contain, that institution_name is present only 'when Algolia has it,' an auto-pick rule with an ambiguity fallback, and conversation-scoped ID lifetime. This is rich operational context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by scoping, result shape, and interaction rules; each sentence carries distinct guidance. It is dense but slightly overlong, with the user-presentation rule sitting as a somewhat separate concern.

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?

Covers scoping, fallback behavior, disambiguation, and lifecycle for a tool where the output schema already documents return shape. The only real gap is the undocumented limit parameter, so it is near-complete rather than fully so.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so well for institution_id (where to source it, and the richer result fields when omitted), but leaves limit (default 3, max 10) and query length constraints entirely undocumented. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 definition opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search Studocu courses') and anchors it to a concrete use case ('when establishing or correcting course context'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like search-institutions and search-documents, which are referenced for their distinct roles.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not guidance: 'Prefer institution_id from search-institutions to scope results. Omit institution_id only when the institution is unknown' plus 'Do not require this before every document search.' It names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it.

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