share_suggest_courses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond annotations: no mention of how many candidates come back, whether there is rate limiting or auth, or what the response looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than compactness.

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, so return values needn't be explained, and the sibling list makes the search alternative discoverable. Still, at 0% schema coverage, the description doesn't mention the `limit` parameter at all, so it isn't fully complete for a two-parameter tool.

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 neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description only implicitly maps to `keyword` (关键词) and only hints at the existence of a result cap (候选); the `limit` parameter, its default of 10, and its 1-20 range are never mentioned.

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 function (课程关键词自动补全, course keyword autocomplete) on a specific resource (course names), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling share_search_courses full-search tool. It never names that sibling, however, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"适合名称不完整时获取候选" gives one usage condition: use it when the course name is incomplete. It doesn't say when to prefer share_search_courses or share_get_course instead, nor does it exclude any case, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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