search_exams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns courses rather than exam dates, which is a useful behavioral clarification. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, result ordering, or how the open-world hint affects results, so it adds only moderate value beyond 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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up instruction is placed immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 tool has a rich output schema and full parameter documentation, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting with search_courses, but the exam-specific focus and the get_course pointer make the tool's role clear enough.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the overall return semantics (courses, not dates). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 for courses with matching exam records (Prüfungstermine), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_course by noting that concrete exam dates require a follow-up call, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like search_courses.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call get_course for concrete exam dates, providing a clear next step and implicit alternative. It doesn't explicitly state when to use search_exams versus search_courses, but the exam-specific focus and the pointer to get_course give adequate context.

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