Smart search course content

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond these by disclosing its beta status and the fact that it returns a note when not enabled for the course. This extra behavioral context is useful and does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose and scope, and includes only necessary details (ranking logic, use case, beta note). No filler words or redundant phrasing; every sentence 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is searched, how results are ranked, and a special condition (not enabled). It does not describe the return format or result limits, but given the annotations already cover safety and idempotence, this is reasonably complete. More detail on output shape would improve it, but it is not a major gap.

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% as both parameters have descriptions (query as natural language, courseId as Canvas id). The description adds no significant new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('search') and a well-defined resource scope ('pages, assignments, announcements and discussions') and explicitly distinguishes itself from keyword search ('ranked by meaning'). It clearly separates from sibling getter tools that target individual resources, making the tool's unique cross-resource semantic search purpose obvious.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use context with a concrete example ('where did we cover X?'), which implies semantic queries across content. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for keyword search, use list tools'). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it does not achieve a 5.

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