search_courses

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'lightweight course summaries including aggregate ratings' and that semester defaults to current term. This is sufficient for a search tool, though it could mention that searches are read-only and any rate limits or caching behavior are omitted. Overall, it provides adequate transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence captures the core purpose with examples, the second adds return type and default behavior. Every sentence adds value, and it is well-structured for quick reading.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description is largely complete for a search tool. It specifies the search scope, return content, and default semester. However, it could mention that results are a list or that it supports partial matches to fully set expectations. The sibling tools provide context, but the description stands alone well.

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 adds meaning for 'query' (code or keyword) and 'semester' (defaults to current term), but does not explain the 'limit' parameter. This leaves one parameter undocumented, limiting full understanding. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 it searches the course catalog by code or keyword, with concrete examples (CIS-1200, ethics). It also specifies that it returns lightweight summaries with ratings. This differentiates it from sibling tools that retrieve full details (get_course_details) or specific data (get_course_ratings).

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for initial broad searches of the catalog by code or keyword. It implies alternatives (e.g., get_course_details for full info) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It does mention the default semester behavior, which is helpful.

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