search_training

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data provenance and a CC-BY-4.0 attribution obligation, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result shape, sorting, pagination behavior, or that this is a side-effect-free read (only implied by 'search'). Most of the behavioral surface is unaddressed.

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?

Three short fragments with no filler; the scope statement is front-loaded. The API URL and license/credit clause are housekeeping rather than selection-relevant, but they are brief and non-disruptive.

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 nine-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the corpus and data source but never sketches the returned fields or the relationship between free-text q and the facet filters. Adequate, with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by calling.

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% and every one of the nine filters is documented in-schema (including the comma-separated OR semantics and the limit defaults). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource precisely: 'Fellowships, courses, and bootcamps in AI safety.' An agent knows exactly what corpus is queried. It stops short of distinguishing this from the sibling search_courses, whose scope visibly overlaps with 'courses', so it does not earn a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite ten sibling search_* tools. The agent must infer from the noun phrase alone whether this or search_courses is the right target.

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