Search Course Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds the specificity of searching four content types. It does not contradict annotations, but it discloses little beyond that. The openWorldHint is not addressed, and no return behavior or pagination details are provided.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action ('Search for content within a course') and contains no superfluous information. Every word 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 search tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It states the scope (within a course) and the content types searched. It omits return format, but that is not essential for a search tool. The tool is straightforward and the description covers the essential facts.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., content_types enum is already listed). Baseline 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for content within a course' and enumerates the content types searched (pages, assignments, discussions, announcements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages or view_course_structure, which are for listing or viewing structure rather than keyword search.

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 (when searching for content by keyword) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It provides clear context (within a course) but no guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer other tools like list_* functions.

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