search_seminars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does well by stating that results are a list of seminar information including title, date, PDF and YouTube links, and it clarifies sort semantics. It stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or describing authentication/rate-limit behavior, but 'Search' makes the non-destructive nature reasonably clear.

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 well-structured with a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. There is no redundant prose.

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 straightforward search tool, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, all parameters with practical examples, and return content despite the lack of an output schema. The main missing piece is a pointer to get_seminar_transcript as the appropriate next step once a seminar is found, but this is not required to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by giving concrete query examples like 'machine learning', 'lambda', and 's3', clarifying that sort_order is by published date, and describing the return shape. This helps an agent choose appropriate parameter values.

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 opens with 'Search AWS Black Belt seminars by keyword,' giving a specific verb and resource. This clearly contrasts with the sibling tool get_seminar_transcript, which presumably retrieves content for an already-identified seminar rather than searching for seminars.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to find AWS Black Belt seminars by keyword. However, it never explicitly mentions when to use get_seminar_transcript instead, and there is no guidance about follow-up steps after searching.

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