search_curriculum

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 names the matched fields but says nothing about result limits, ranking/relevance ordering, case sensitivity, empty-result behavior, or required permissions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The scope (all four modules) and match fields are packed in tightly with nothing wasted.

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 and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits what the four modules are, how results are ordered or shaped, and any limits. For a search entry point that an agent must choose over several siblings, this is under-specified.

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% and there is a single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds only that matching spans title, summary, and detail, which clarifies search scope but not query syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('across all four modules') plus the fields matched (title, summary, detail). This distinguishes it from direct-retrieval siblings like get_principle and get_case_study. However, 'all four modules' is never enumerated, so the agent must infer the corpus from sibling names.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The search-vs-get distinction against siblings is only weakly implied by the verb choice, leaving the agent to infer that this is the entry point for keyword lookup.

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