search_course_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Search implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about result volume, the role of the limit parameter, ordering, or what happens when a query matches nothing — all relevant for a tool with no output schema.

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 efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is concise, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally dense.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should do more. It omits course identifier format, pagination via limit, and return-shape expectations, leaving the agent to guess at core invocation details.

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% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'course' is a single course identifier; the query matching semantics and the limit/pagination behavior are entirely undocumented in both schema and 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 verb (Search) and enumerates the resource scope: Course Overview, module bodies, topics, and descriptions, constrained to one course. This distinguishes it reasonably well from retrieval siblings like get_course_content and read_course_material, though it never explicitly names the distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this search tool versus get_course_content, get_course_overview, or read_course_material. The one-course constraint is implied but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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