search_subjects

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

Discloses key behaviors: two modes, parameter switching logic, default term handling, and that single-subject results include teaching groups while broader searches do not. Despite no annotations, the description provides good transparency, though it could mention read-only safety or rate limits.

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?

Fairly concise with two paragraphs; front-loads purpose and then elaborates on modes. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

Covers all aspects of tool usage: two modes, parameter interactions, default behaviors, and output characteristics (teaching groups for single result). With an output schema present, the description sufficiently contextualizes the tool's capabilities.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: `query` as subject code or keyword, `department` and `program` for programme mode, and `term` with mode-specific defaults. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Search subject offerings' and provides two distinct modes (by subject, by programme). It explains the verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like confirm_registration or get_timetable.

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?

Describes two usage scenarios (by subject or by programme) and defaults for the `term` parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Implicit guidance is present but not explicit enough for a higher score.

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