search_courses

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior beyond them: results are paginated with bounded pages, and has_more signals additional upstream suggestions rather than a hard end of results.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the search scope and followed by pagination semantics. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 no output schema, the description does explain the key return signal (has_more) and pagination bounding, which is the main thing an agent needs. It falls short only on parameter-level detail for page/limit.

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 carries the full burden. It conveys meaning for query (accepts course code, subject, title, or keywords) and term (must be a published term), but says nothing about page or limit, their bounds, or the term identifier format.

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) plus resource (McGill VSB), and enumerates the query modes (course code, subject, title, keywords) and the term constraint. It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_sections or check_conflicts.

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?

'for a published term' implies the required precondition (only published terms are searchable), which is useful implied usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_sections or check_conflicts, and no stated exclusions.

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