search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral details: matching ignores accents and case, and the default scope is 'all ongoing courses.' However, it does not disclose result pagination, ordering, or behavior when no matches are found, leaving some gaps beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the primary purpose, followed by a one-line note on matching behavior, and then a clean Args section with examples. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence contributes 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the search scope, matching rules, and parameter defaults. It doesn't describe the return format, but since an output schema exists, that is not required. The tool's simplicity and annotations cover most operational context, making this a solid score.

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 fully explain the parameters. It provides concrete examples for 'query' (e.g., 'homework 3') and clarifies the 'course' parameter's default and scope (all ongoing courses). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not specify the expected format of the course value (e.g., ID vs. name), which would be helpful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find course items ... and sections by name across your courses.' It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting to name-based search, which contrasts with search_in_files (likely content search). The purpose is clear and 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (searching by name, ignoring accents/case, defaulting to ongoing courses) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to search_in_files or other siblings is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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