share_search_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining the two-stage course-first/material-ranking approach and the lack of a site-wide material search API. It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but with annotations this is a meaningful addition.

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 short, dense, and front-loads the core cross-course retrieval concept. It avoids filler, though the second clause combines a limitation statement and a parameter hint in a way that is slightly telegraphic.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values or read-only behavior. It still leaves three of four parameter meanings undocumented and gives only a high-level workflow, making it adequate but not complete for a search tool with 0% schema description coverage.

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 compensate for four parameters. It only explains course_keyword, and even that is brief; query, max_results, and course_limit are left to their names and schema defaults. This leaves important search-scope semantics undocumented in the description.

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 cross-course search workflow: search courses first, then rank relevant course materials. It also clarifies that there is no site-wide material search API, which helps distinguish it from a generic material search. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, and the exact return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the cross-course material-search workflow, and the description gives one concrete condition: use course_keyword for mixed keywords to specify a course name. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like share_search_courses or share_get_course_materials, nor does it give exclusions.

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