search_courses_by_name

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

The description mentions case-insensitive search and partial matching, which are helpful behavioral traits. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries more burden; it does not disclose potential performance concerns for large datasets, rate limits, or whether it returns archived courses. The lack of annotations raises the bar, and the description does not fully compensate.

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 at three sentences, clearly front-loading the purpose and usage context. Each sentence adds value: purpose, when-to-use, and behavioral details (partial matching, case-insensitivity). It could be slightly more compact by removing redundancy (e.g., 'case-insensitive partial match' appears in both description and schema), but overall efficient.

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 is a simple search with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the key aspects: search behavior, match strategy, return fields, and how to use the results. It doesn't explain pagination or default limit, but those are covered by the schema description for the 'limit' parameter. Minor gaps exist (e.g., what happens when no results), but overall complete for this complexity level.

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%, so the schema already documents the two parameters (searchTerm and limit) with descriptions. The description adds some context by mentioning specific fields matched (course full name, short name, ID number) and what is returned (course ID, full name, short name, category, visibility), but this is already implied by the tool's purpose. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses specific verbs ('Search for courses by name') and clearly states the resource (courses) and the matching scope (name, with partial matching on various fields). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_courses' by emphasizing that this is for finding course IDs when only a partial name is known.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'finding course IDs when you only know part of the course name.' It also provides a concrete use case: 'Use this to find course IDs for other tools like list_course_users.' This makes it clear how it fits into workflows and differentiates it from listing all courses.

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