campus_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real operational context beyond those: it auto-detects a single input, falls back to Enter submission, and warns that results may load asynchronously requiring re-inspection. It stops short of describing prerequisites such as login state or what happens when multiple candidate inputs exist.

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?

Roughly four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by the fallback and the async caveat. No filler, though the input-detection mechanics occupy more space than the primary search semantics.

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 non-idempotent, open-world tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the fallback invocation path and the async-results caveat well, so nothing about calling it correctly is missing. It omits provider semantics and any login/session prerequisite implied by the campus_school_login sibling.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden and does explain the two optional refs ('from the same latest inspection', 'if ambiguous'). However, the required 'keyword' and the 'provider' enum (csmar/cnrds) are never mentioned, leaving half the interface undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 the currently visible catalogue using its website search box'), which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like campus_scroll, campus_act, and campus_inspect. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the scope ('currently visible catalogue') makes the intended object of the search unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: use it when you need the site's own search box. It gives useful invocation branching (auto-detect vs. pass input_ref/submit_ref) and implicitly routes to campus_inspect via 'inspect again when needed', but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not or named alternative.

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