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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns up to 25 courses, includes a direct purchase URL, and requires no authentication. It does not cover rate limits, error handling, or pagination, but the information given is sufficient for a read-only search tool.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, then context, examples, result details, and authentication status. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The description covers core functionality, parameters, and result limit, but lacks detail on the return format (beyond 'URL') and does not mention error responses. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should have elaborated on the course fields returned to achieve full completeness.

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 67% (q and framework described, limit not). The description adds significant value by providing concrete examples for q ('soc 2 evidence collection') and framework ('ISO 27001'), and clarifies the limit parameter's maximum via 'Returns up to 25 courses'. This compensates for the missing schema description on limit.

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 clearly states the tool searches the course catalogue via free-text, optionally narrowed by framework. The verb 'search' and resource 'course catalogue' are specific, and the option to narrow by framework distinguishes it from siblings like agent_get_course (specific course) and agent_search (general search).

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 gives context for when to use the tool (searching courses by need, framework, role, or industry) but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as agent_courses_for_frameworks or agent_search. The usage is implied but lacks clear when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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