Search the course catalogue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies the search covers the full catalogue rather than term-specific offerings, and gives example queries. It does not contradict annotations and adds useful scope information, though it omits details about return format or pagination.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then immediately gives usage guidance and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 tool with 10 parameters, the description is complete in explaining the core behavior, usage modes, and the main alternative. It does not describe the return structure, but given the absence of an output schema and the read-only, idempotent nature, this is a minor gap. The description covers the essential context an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds value by providing concrete usage examples ('machine learning', 'CS 161') and illustrating combined filters ('all GE-2 lower-division courses worth 4 units'), which clarify how to combine parameters beyond their individual definitions. This goes beyond the schema's isolated descriptions.

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 verb 'search' and a clear resource 'UCI course catalogue', and explicitly clarifies the scope ('all courses that exist, not term-specific offerings'). It also distinguishes itself from find_sections, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiated from a key sibling.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it explains two usage modes (free-text query vs. structured filters) and gives a concrete alternative with a condition ('To see which sections actually run... use find_sections instead'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over others.

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