search_course_ids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it's 'lightweight' (hinting at performance) but gives no details on rate limits, authorization, side effects (though search is inherently read-only), or any edge-case behavior. It doesn't contradict anything, but it is thin on transparency beyond the lightweight hint.

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 zero filler. The purpose and key usage rule are front-loaded, and the field definitions are packed efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description adequately addresses usage and parameter semantics. It doesn't mention limitations like pagination or rate limits, but for a lightweight search tool that's acceptable. It also hints at sibling differentiation, which is sufficient.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explicitly defines c_id as 'statewide Course Identification Numbering System value', course_symbol as 'local code such as COMPSCI001', and course_name as 'title phrase'. It also implies max_results is a limit through its name. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though max_results isn't explicitly clarified.

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 and resource: 'Search CVC course IDs at a California community college.' It also specifies the required input (college name plus filter) and distinguishes itself as 'the preferred, lightweight search' relative to heavier siblings like scrape_course_ids. The purpose is unmistakable even without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: 'Use a college name plus at least one filter.' It also explains the meaning of c_id, course_symbol, and course_name, and labels the tool as lightweight, implying it should be used for quick lookups rather than scraping. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the context signals list them and the description's phrasing makes the usage context clear.

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