Search Course Content

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the 'Read-only' sentence is partly redundant. However, the description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the search spans titles AND bodies across four content types, and it works at every school whereas smart_search does not. It stops short of describing result format or pagination, keeping it at a 4.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then sibling routing. No sentence is filler; every clause carries routing or scope information.

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 three-parameter read-only search with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, content coverage and tool selection adequately. Only the shape of returned results is left implicit, which is acceptable given the surrounding structured data.

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% — query, course_id and limit are all documented inline, including where to get course_id. The description adds only indirect meaning (that the query matches titles and bodies), which is mildly useful but doesn't go beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 applies.

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 one course by keyword') plus the exact content types searched (pages, assignments, announcements, discussions, titles and bodies). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools smart_search and grep_all_courses, so an agent can differentiate without opening 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?

Gives explicit routing rules: 'Works at every school, unlike smart_search' and 'Use grep_all_courses when you don't know the course.' Both alternatives and the conditions that select them are named directly.

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