motimate_search_moti_content

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 an important implementation behavior: it loads all chapters with content blocks and then filters for matches, implying a potentially expensive operation. It does not mention read-only guarantees, return format, or failure behavior, but the disclosed loading/filtering behavior is valuable context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the main purpose and scope, and the second explains the operational approach. 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?

For a single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it states the search scope, the content types involved, and the loading/filtering mechanism. It leaves the exact return structure unspecified, but the tool's purpose implies a list of matching content items, so the gap is minor.

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%, and the parameter description already explains that the search term applies to titles and content. The tool description adds content-type details but does not materially enhance the meaning of the single parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific action (Durchsucht) and a clear resource (Inhalte aller Schulungen), including concrete content types: Texte, Quizze, Bilder. This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like motimate_search_motis by focusing on content-level search across all trainings.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when searching inside the text, quiz, and image content of trainings. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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