search_lessons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It communicates that this is a read-only search operation by stating it returns matching lesson titles and URLs, and it scopes the corpus (500+ tracks, free lessons). It does not explicitly state 'no side effects' or edge-case behavior, but the wording implies a safe, non-mutating lookup.

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 no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output; the second provides concrete usage guidance and a natural handoff to read_lesson.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, return format, and when to use it, which is sufficient for a simple search tool. It does not describe result count/ordering, but the limit parameter is already in the schema and no output schema is present, so this is acceptable.

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%, with query and limit already described. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that it returns matching results. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema-description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool searches the AI School curriculum and returns matching lesson titles and URLs. The verb 'Search' plus the resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tracks, get_track, and read_lesson.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool before answering an AI-topic question when a concrete, citable lesson would help, and that read_lesson should follow to get the text. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative exclusions, but the context is clear.

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