search_courses

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: no authentication token is required and the catalogue is public, which changes how an agent should plan the call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the auth fact, then the one non-obvious parameter format. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should convey roughly what a result looks like and how limit/offset page through the catalogue, but neither is mentioned. It is adequate for calling the tool but leaves the agent guessing about return shape and pagination behavior.

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 description carries the burden, and it only explains one parameter: the semester key format ("26W or a semester id"). That is valuable, but query, limit, offset and the de/en language parameter are left to self-evident naming, and what fields "query" actually matches is never stated.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Search the public course catalogue") and even names the underlying endpoint, which unambiguously identifies the operation. It stops short of contrasting with siblings such as list_my_courses or get_course, so the agent must infer the public-catalogue vs. personal-enrolment distinction.

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 token" states an important prerequisite and implies unauthenticated public use, which usefully separates it from token-gated siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for course lookups, so the agent must infer routing from the word "public".

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