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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered without the description. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no result limits, pagination, ranking behavior, or indication of what a search returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves it with nothing to say about behavior or scope.

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 simple, fully optional, three-parameter search tool with complete schema descriptions, full annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Return-value behavior is not required of the description here.

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%, with query, is_free, and category each documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional semantics such as matching behavior, multi-word handling, or how category values are expected to be formed.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (professional courses and training programs), and the resource noun distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs, search_events, and search_experts. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the domain is unambiguous.

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 only implied by the resource noun: an agent can infer this tool is for courses rather than jobs or events. There is no stated exclusion, no guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool, and no prerequisites described.

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