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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and side-effect questions are covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that matches come back with links, but says nothing about ranking, truncation, or how the per-type limit interacts with results.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded and the return shape stated second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched and what comes back. A minor gap remains around result ordering and whether the limit applies per content type, which the schema hints at but the description does not confirm.

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% (both query and limit are documented in-schema with bounds and default), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by keyword' merely restates the query parameter and adds no syntax, matching, or scoping detail 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?

States a specific verb (Search) plus the three resource types it covers (courses, lesson titles, blog posts) and how matching works (by keyword). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from list_courses/list_blog_posts, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you have a keyword rather than wanting a full listing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_courses, list_blog_posts, or get_lesson, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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