sg_ntu_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (module code, title, AUs, description) and how it searches (by code or title), but it does not disclose potential limitations such as empty results, pagination, or authentication requirements. For a simple read-only search, this is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It communicates purpose, search method, and output in an efficient manner, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: what it does and what it returns. It lacks only optional details like result limits or error behavior, but these are not critical for typical usage.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'query' parameter, including examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating that search is by code or title. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource ('NTU modules'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like sg_nus_modules and sg_company_search. It also enumerates the returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 description makes clear this is the tool for searching NTU modules by code or title, providing immediate context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the NTU focus is unambiguous and differentiates it from similar tools.

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