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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only nature, and the description is consistent with that, describing a search operation. No contradiction exists, though the description adds no additional behavioral detail such as pagination or side effects.

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 a single focused sentence with no redundant or extraneous content. It communicates the core purpose clearly and efficiently.

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 adequately conveys the tool's purpose and scope, and the parameter schema supplies most of the remaining context. The lack of an output schema is not a major issue for a search tool, though return shape and pagination behavior are not explicitly stated.

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?

Several parameters have useful descriptions (term, as_of, cursor, snapshot_id, source_code), but the required query parameter is undescribed, and limit and fields lack semantic explanation. Schema coverage is 63%, so the description only partially compensates for parameter ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action ('Search'), a specific resource ('courses'), and a clear scope ('within one snapshot'). It distinguishes this from related tools like seneca_get_course or seneca_search_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 intended use as a search operation over courses is implied, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over sibling tools such as seneca_get_course or seneca_search_programs, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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