search_course_content

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the underlying query engine (SQLite FTS5, BM25 ranking) and what results will include (snippets, citations, URLs). It does not cover edge cases like empty results or required permissions, but the core behavior is clearly communicated.

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 brief, front-loaded, and information-dense, fitting both the tool's purpose and key execution details into two sentences. Every sentence adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema and a simple parameter set, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's role and expected result format. It doesn't explicitly mention the optional course_slug filtering behavior, but the main functional context for an agent to decide to call is complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does little to explain what limit or course_slug do. The query parameter is implicitly clear as the search term, but the other two parameters are left to the agent to infer from the schema alone. The description should compensate for missing schema documentation but does not.

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 ('Full-text search') and a clear resource scope ('indexed transcripts, lesson pages, and notebooks'). It also specifies the output type ('snippets, timestamp citations, direct URLs'), which immediately sets it apart from sibling retrieval tools like get_lesson_transcript or list_courses.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to search within course content, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_lesson_transcript or get_course_structure. There is no direct 'use this when...' guidance, but the purpose is recognizable from the name and description.

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