scrape_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it is experimental, slow (loads a page per result), and requires Chrome/Chromium and a compatible driver. This is valuable context for an agent. However, it omits potential failure modes (e.g., network errors, rate limits) and the exact nature of the returned data, though the output schema covers the latter. A 4 reflects strong but not exhaustive transparency.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, caveats, and alternative. It front-loads the purpose and keeps the caveats and guidance concise. No wasted words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description provides the essential context: what it does, its limitations, and when to prefer alternatives. It lacks explicit details on how parameters are used together, but the schema fills some gaps. For a tool of this complexity, it is adequately complete for an agent to decide and execute.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention any parameters. The schema itself provides titles (e.g., 'C Id', 'Course Name', 'Max Results') and defaults, which are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description offers no guidance on how parameters interact or how filtering works. This is a significant gap for a tool with 5 parameters.

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 'Search CVC in a headless browser and return detailed matching courses.' This specifies a verb (search), a resource (CVC), and a distinct outcome (detailed matching courses). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting the preferred alternative search_course_ids + get_course, making its heavier nature apparent.

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 says 'Prefer search_course_ids followed by get_course when possible,' giving a clear directive for when not to use this tool. However, it does not state the conditions under which this tool should be used (e.g., when the lighter path is insufficient or unavailable), leaving some inference required. Still, the guidance on alternatives is explicit and helpful.

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