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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and scope profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: results span the entire catalog, including courses this account is not enrolled in. It does not discuss result ordering or limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 scope constraint and the sibling redirection packed in, and no wasted clauses. Every element earns its place.

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?

Given one fully documented parameter, existing annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to select and call the tool. The remaining gap is that it never says how matching works (exact, substring, case-insensitive), which matters for a free-text search parameter.

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%, so 'search_text' is already documented in the schema as 'Text to search for in course names.' The description's phrase 'by name' merely restates that. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 applies; no matching semantics (substring vs. exact) are added.

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 ('Search PLATO's entire course catalog') and immediately scopes it as not limited to enrolled courses. It also names the sibling tool (list_courses) it should not be confused with, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (searching the entire catalog by name) and when to use the alternative ('use list_courses for that' when the enrolled-course list is wanted). The exclusion is stated in the same breath as the purpose, leaving nothing to inference.

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