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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds curatorial context that only published courses are searched and that an empty query returns everything, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, or what identifiers are returned.

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, with the scope and the most useful edge case ('Empty query lists all courses') front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 search tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers scope, topics, and empty-query behavior. It could say more about how results should be used with get_course, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the enum and default for lang. The description adds only the empty-query behavior for the query parameter, which is helpful but minimal — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search published video courses of Skillaria.Top') and gives topical examples. It is clearly distinguishable from search_guides by resource type, though it never explicitly names the sibling or the get_course follow-up.

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 sentence 'Empty query lists all courses' gives one useful usage condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_course or search_guides. The agent must infer the boundary from the resource names alone.

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