search_units

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context beyond them. It adds scope (which unit types and fields are involved), but it does not disclose match semantics, pagination, result limits, or exact-match behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical is compact yet informative.

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 an output schema, read-only annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete for selection and invocation. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance relative to sibling unit tools like list_departments or get_unit.

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%, with both query and limit already documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but because the schema carries the full burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('institutes, departments and faculties'), with a useful parenthetical about returned fields. It is distinct from course, staff, and exam search siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_departments or get_unit.

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 guidance is provided on when to use search_units versus alternatives like list_departments or get_unit. The description relies on the tool name and required query parameter to imply a keyword-search use case.

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