Search Is

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the search is federated across all entities, how results are ranked or capped, whether it requires an authenticated session, or what happens with an empty query. An output schema exists, so return shape is partially covered elsewhere, but the search behavior itself is undisclosed.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the verb and scope are front-loaded. Slightly more context could be added without hurting readability, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the bar is low and the description is minimally sufficient to know what it addresses. It falls short on cross-entity result behavior and any auth or result-limit context that an agent would need to interpret or sequence calls correctly.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself giving examples (teacher name, course code, topic). The description adds only marginal meaning by listing what entity types a query can target, which hints that one query spans multiple result kinds, but gives no syntax, matching, or partial-match guidance.

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 names a concrete verb ('Search') and enumerates the resource types it covers (people/teachers/students, courses, documents, publications) plus the system ('IS MU'), which is more specific than the bare name 'search_is'. It does not differentiate itself from the closest sibling, browse_course_catalogue, which also surfaces courses.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of entity types suggests this is a free-text lookup tool for when you do not already have an identifier. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as browse_course_catalogue or get_course_details for structured course retrieval.

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