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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers real context: FREE, no API key, no payment, plus what a response contains (matching courses, the specific chapter, and a buy_url). It does not cover pagination or rate/limit behaviour, so it stops just short of full transparency.

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-loads the core purpose ('Search what courses teach') and the key routing contrast, then adds supporting detail. Slightly dense with formatting and stats (126,803 courses), but each sentence adds selection value rather than repeating structured fields.

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 must explain returns, and it does: courses that teach the capability, the chapter, and a buy_url. Combined with the cost/auth disclosure it is nearly complete for a 2-param search tool; only limit/pagination behaviour is unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for the critical 'q' parameter: examples ('evidence for access reviews', 'segregation of duties in SAP') and the guidance to query a CAPABILITY rather than a product name materially change how an agent constructs the query. The 'limit' parameter is left unexplained, keeping it out of the top score.

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 and resource — full-text search over the teaching content (module titles, summaries, chapter titles) of 126,803 courses. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling agent_search_courses by scope (content vs product names), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit usage rule: 'Use this when someone asks how to do something rather than what to buy.' It also names the alternative (agent_search_courses) and the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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