search_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it operates only over already-read or indexed material, returns page/slide-level evidence with excerpts, and results can be incomplete because uncovered files are flagged. Return granularity and coverage behavior are real value 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the capability and its return value come first, the coverage caveat second. Both sentences carry information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, four undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, and no explanation of pagination or course scoping, the definition is not complete enough to call this tool confidently. The coverage caveat helps, but the parameter and result-shape gaps remain.

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% for four parameters (query, limit, offset, courseId), so the description carries the full burden — and it mentions none of them. It never explains that courseId narrows the search to a course or that limit/offset control pagination, leaving the agent to infer all parameter meaning from names and constraints alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it searches the body text of materials that have already been read or indexed, and it states what is returned (evidence pages/slides plus excerpts). It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_material/list_materials by scoping to content search, though it never names a sibling it is not.

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 (search material contents to find supporting passages), and the coverage disclaimer ('files missing from coverage are indicated; do not treat this as searching all school materials') is a useful boundary. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. search_materials versus search_items or read_material.

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