share_search_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds a list of returned fields, but that information duplicates the output schema and does not disclose anything behavioral beyond the 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 a single efficient sentence with the core operation front-loaded. The trailing enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 read-only search tool with full annotations and an output schema, this is close to usable, but the absence of any hint about the 'limit' parameter and the lack of sibling differentiation leave clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics, but it only implies that 'keyword' is a course keyword and never mentions the 'limit' parameter, its default of 20, or its maximum of 50. It leaves half the parameters undocumented in either place.

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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (courses) scoped to a keyword lookup, making the core operation unambiguous. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like share_suggest_courses or share_get_course, so an agent gets no help distinguishing between them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the alternative share_suggest_courses. Usage is only implied by the word 'search', leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable.

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