klax_search_learning_materials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: local FTS with no transmission to external APIs/embedding services, partial_failure=True with a reason list when indexing-failed/unsupported/processing materials are in scope, and material-type-dependent locator semantics. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results and anticipate incomplete output.

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 dense sentences with purpose front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: search scope, locator contract with follow-up route, and failure/privacy behavior. No filler or redundant restating of schema fields.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the hard parts — partial-failure contract, per-type locator semantics, privacy behavior, and transcript follow-up path — while the existing output schema covers return values. The remaining gaps are the undocumented limit/course_id semantics and the unaddressed overlap with klax_search_course_materials.

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 must compensate. It does so partially — the corpus and material-type enumeration give meaning to query and material_type, and locator rules are type-conditional — but limit and course_id are never explained. The description adds valuable context but does not fully document all four 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 states a specific verb and resource — searches indexed lecture-material chunks (PDF/PPTX/HWPX/video) via local FTS — and enumerates the returned fields (locator, source_url, retrieved_at, freshness). The corpus enumeration and per-type locator contract make the purpose specific enough to distinguish it from the sibling search tools in the list.

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?

It gives clear search context and one routing hint (time: locator results can be fetched in full via klax_get_video_transcript), plus a local-only privacy note. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the near-identical sibling klax_search_course_materials, nor states any exclusions, leaving the closest alternative unaddressed.

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