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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the library is public, scope ids must come from active context and never be solicited from the user, and free-text course codes/school names belong in the query. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the primary invocation rule (query alone) is front-loaded before the optional-parameter caveats and the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries actionable instruction.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers selection, invocation, and parameter routing adequately. The only gap is what the results contain or how many/pagination, which is minor given limit is documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds routing semantics the schema only partly encodes: that course codes and school names the user typed go into query rather than the UUID parameters, and that schoolId/courseId are pre-existing context values, not user-facing inputs. This materially reduces the chance of the agent misassigning a value to the wrong parameter.

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 the public uNotes document library') plus the searchable fields (title, course, type keywords). It also draws a hard boundary against sibling listing tools ('not for the user's own quizzes or flashcards'), so an agent can separate it from list_my_quizzes/list_my_flashcards without reading schemas.

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 prescribes the invocation pattern ('Call it with the query alone whenever no scope id is already known'), labels schoolId/courseId as optional narrowing hints that are 'never prerequisites', and forbids asking the user for them. It also names the alternatives (the user's own listing tools) for the excluded case.

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