search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: accent-insensitivity and FTS5 syntax support. But it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, mention pagination, rate limits, or the fact that it only searches names (which is actually mentioned). The behavioral transparency is adequate but has gaps around side effects and operational constraints.

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: the first gives the core purpose, the second and third provide concise, valuable syntax details. There is no redundant or filler text, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has a moderate parameter set and an output schema, which covers return values. The description explains search scope and special query syntax, which is the main contextual need. It does not explicitly describe how the 'course' parameter filters results, but this is reasonably inferable from the schema. Overall, the description is nearly complete for successful use.

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. It adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying what it searches (names) and giving syntax examples (NEAR, wildcard). However, it does not explain the 'limit' or 'course' parameters beyond their schema titles and types, leaving some semantics to inference. The compensation is partial, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 ('search') and explicitly lists the resources ('course, section, module and file names'). It also sets the tool apart from all siblings, none of which are search-related, by clarifying exactly what content is searched.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever full-text search over course/section/module/file names is needed. It also gives examples of the FTS5 syntax, making its usage concrete. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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