motimate_search_motis

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does make the read/search nature clear ('Sucht und listet') and enumerates the filter surface, which covers the core behavior of a search tool. However, it discloses nothing about result format, pagination, ordering, or how filters combine, keeping this at a mid score.

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 waste: the first is front-loaded with the core action and resource, the second efficiently summarizes all filtering dimensions. No filler and no tautological restatement of the tool name.

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 search tool with zero required parameters, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and filter options. Gaps remain: no disambiguation from motimate_search_moti_content, no mention of result scope or limits, and no statement about whether filters combine. These are non-fatal for a simple search tool but leave room for improvement.

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 five parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description's filter list ('Titel, Beschreibung, Kategorie, Ordner, Tags oder Status') restates the parameter semantics at a higher level of abstraction and adds no new detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Sucht und listet') with a specific resource ('Schulungen (Motis) in Motimate') and enumerates the filtering dimensions, making the core function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling motimate_search_moti_content, so differentiation must be inferred from the tool name rather than the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like motimate_search_moti_content and motimate_search_learning_paths present, an agent gets no explicit signal for choosing between searching training metadata, searching inside training content, or searching learning paths. The usage context is only weakly implied by 'Sucht und listet Schulungen,' with no exclusions or named alternatives.

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