search_course_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine extra context with the negative behavior "Nothing is downloaded by this call," which clarifies that matching files are not fetched. Pagination/limit behavior is left unstated, keeping it from 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/scope first, return fields second, the "nothing is downloaded" caveat last. Zero waste and front-loaded with the essential action.

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 an output schema present, the return-value enumeration is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the annotations cover safety. The description routes the agent to get_material and states scope, leaving only the limit parameter's behavior undocumented.

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 carry the load. It meaningfully explains query semantics ("by title, filename, description or section name") and course_id scoping ("across current courses (or one course)"), but the limit parameter is never addressed, so it compensates for two of three 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Search course materials"), enumerates what counts as a material (PDFs, pages, books, links, folders, lecture notes), and states the searchable fields. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_material by noting it returns a material id for that tool, so an agent can separate discovery from retrieval.

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 gives clear scope ("across current courses (or one course)") and a routing hint toward get_material via the returned id, implying a search-then-fetch workflow. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming any alternative search tool, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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