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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that no authentication is required, which is a helpful behavioral note. It also explains fallback behavior when no single course spans all standards. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or rate limits. For a read-only search tool, this is adequate, and a 4 is justified given the added context beyond annotations.

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?

The description is four sentences long, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is helpful but could be integrated more tightly. Every sentence adds value, though the response section adds minimal new information beyond the schema. Still, it is well-structured and concise.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential: what the tool does, how to use it (with example), fallback behavior, and authentication context. It could mention return format more explicitly, but the response 200 hint in the description partially covers that. The tool is relatively simple, so completeness is high.

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 50%, meaning one parameter (frameworks) has a description in the schema. The description compensates by providing an example ('SOC 2,ISO 27001') and explaining the semantics of the frameworks parameter. The limit parameter's default and constraints are already in the schema, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. Overall, the description adds value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Find courses covering several standards at once' and clearly identifies the resource (courses covering multiple frameworks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent_search_courses by emphasizing multi-standard coverage for organizations running overlapping programs.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when an organisation running overlapping programmes actually needs' courses addressing ALL standards together) and provides a clear example (frameworks='SOC 2,ISO 27001'). It also explains fallback behavior ('returns courses on running both from one evidence set, rather than one course per standard') and notes that no authentication is required. No explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the context and example guide usage well.

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