search_courses

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. It discloses the searchable fields, fuzzy matching, returned fields (number, name, teacher, time, location, credits), and the no-match fallback. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the word 'search' and the list-return behavior strongly imply it.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by illustrative examples and a summary of the return value. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description is largely complete: it covers the input semantics, expected output fields, and the no-match case. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated. It only omits minor constraints like exact matching rules or edge-case behavior, which is acceptable given the low complexity.

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?

The schema provides only a required 'keyword' string with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that the keyword can be a course name, course number, or teacher name and supports fuzzy matching. This gives the agent precise semantic understanding of the single parameter.

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 courses by course name, course number, or teacher name with fuzzy matching. The examples ('张' finding all courses by a teacher, 'python' finding Python programming) make the behavior concrete and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_course or list_courses_by_weekday.

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 gives strong context for when to use this tool: when the caller has a partial keyword for a course name, code, or teacher. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tool names and examples make the intended usage clear enough.

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