search_courses

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds the non-obvious scope fact that results span the whole catalog rather than the caller's enrolled courses, which materially changes what an agent should expect back. It says nothing about result caps or pagination, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope and immediately followed by the sibling cross-reference. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With one required parameter and an output schema present, the description needs only to convey scope and routing, both of which it does. Lacking pagination or result-size guidance is the only remaining gap for a catalog-wide search.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline applies. The phrase 'by name' reinforces that search_text matches course names, but the schema already states this, so no real value is added.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (PLATO's entire course catalog) plus the matching field (by name). It explicitly separates itself from list_courses, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: enrolled-only listings go to list_courses, everything else to this tool. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or partial matches, but the primary routing decision is explicit.

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