search_course_contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that search operates on the index, not file contents, but nothing about match semantics or limits; with annotations carrying the burden, a 3 fits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope boundary in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is terse but does not read as under-specified for its length.

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?

With an output schema available and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needs only purpose and scope, which it delivers. The main residual gap is match semantics for the query parameter, which is minor given the small two-parameter surface.

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 schema gives no parameter meaning. The description partially compensates: 'por nombre y descripción' indicates what the query string matches, and 'de un curso' implies course_id scopes the search. It still omits matching behavior (exact vs partial) and query format.

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 (Busca) and resource (el índice de un curso) and adds a scope boundary (no dentro de archivos) that separates it from read_content. It does not name the sibling tools explicitly, but the boundary is clear enough to distinguish intent.

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 parenthetical '(no dentro de archivos)' implies an exclusion, steering the agent away for file-content search, but it never names the alternative tool or states the condition for switching. Usage must be largely inferred.

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