Search course content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral trait: searching all courses 'walks each tree,' implying a potentially slow operation. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent an expectation about performance, which is valuable.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core function and scope; the second provides usage context and a performance caveat. The most important guidance is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's complexity (5 parameters, all documented) and the presence of readOnlyHint, the description covers the main use case and performance implications. It doesn't describe the return format, but that's not critical for a search tool, and the output schema is absent. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The description adds semantic guidance not present in the schema: the trade-off between courseId (fast, targeted) and omitting it (slow, comprehensive), and the 'titlesOnly' hint that it's faster. This helps the agent choose parameters wisely.

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 function: searching content item titles and body text for a query string, with the option to restrict to one course or search all enrolled courses. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/browse tools by focusing on search, and the example 'where are the lecture slides on transformers?' makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user asks where something is') and provides a concrete example. It also gives a clear performance preference: 'prefer a single courseId when you know it,' which guides the agent toward efficient invocation without being overly restrictive.

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