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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: precedence of course_id over course, that institution is display-name-only with no institution_id, and that the returned institution is the pinned course's university rather than the name passed. It does not cover pagination or ranking behavior, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 with the use case before the filter mechanics, and nearly every sentence carries actionable constraint. It is dense and repeats the course_id-wins rule twice, which costs it a point, but there is little outright filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description nonetheless sketches them (titles, course/institution, ratings, links). Filter precedence, argument-source guidance, and the sibling escape hatch are all present, so an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3 and much of the field guidance (query-is-keywords-only, course_id overrules course) is already mirrored in the schema. The description still adds cross-tool guidance — prefer numeric course_id sourced from search-courses — and consolidates the precedence rules in one place, which is meaningful for argument construction.

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 specific verbs (find, search, browse) and a concrete resource (study documents, lecture notes, summaries, course materials on Studocu). It also names the sibling it is not (search-web for open-web sources), so an agent can separate this from the other search tools 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?

Explicit when-to-use, explicit when-not (open-web sources → search-web), and explicit filter-precedence conditions (course_id overrules course; course is optional extra; omit unknown filters). Alternative tool and selecting conditions are named rather than left to inference.

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