Search Course Content

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the search scope. It doesn't mention result behavior (e.g., pagination, result limits), case sensitivity, partial matching, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description is expected to add additional behavioral nuance but does not.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence elaborates scope without redundancy. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has no output schema, the description should ideally specify what the search returns (e.g., matching items, their types, or result format). It also doesn't clarify search behavior (case sensitivity, partial vs exact match). For a read-only search tool, this is a notable gap, but the simplicity of a keyword search with content types partially mitigates it. The description is adequate but not fully 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 schema covers 100% of the parameters, each with full descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value: it mentions 'by keyword' which aligns with the search_term schema description, and it lists the content types which are fully enumerated in the schema's content_types parameter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not meaningfully extend or clarify the parameters.

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 searches content within a course and lists the specific content types: pages, assignments, discussions, and announcements. The verb 'search' and resource 'content' are specific. It distinguishes itself from list tools by implying keyword-based cross-type search, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but could be slightly sharper in differentiating from tools like list_pages.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pages, list_assignments, or search_users. The description doesn't mention when not to use it, any prerequisites, or how it compares to other search/list tools. The usage context is only implied by the word 'search' and the listed content types.

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