search_course

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by defining the search index boundary (what is searchable and what is not), but says nothing about result ordering, match semantics (substring vs fuzzy), pagination behavior, or empty-result handling. That is an appropriate 3 given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the positive scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 would ideally say what a hit looks like (snippet, title, section, ranking) so the agent knows how to consume results, and it says nothing about the limit behavior. For a simple three-parameter read tool it is adequate but leaves the return shape and result-count semantics undefined.

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 burden for all three parameters but supplies almost nothing: it only implies that 'query' is a text term and 'courseId' scopes to one course. Nothing is said about the maxLength=200 query constraint, the limit default of 30 with a 1-100 range, or whether courseId must be a course the caller is enrolled in.

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 names a specific verb (search) and precisely enumerates the indexed resource: visible section summaries plus activity titles/descriptions, scoped to one enrolled course. The closing exclusion ('Does not search PDF/file contents') further sharpens the boundary, and the search verb naturally separates it from siblings list_courses and get_course.

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?

It tells the agent the operative context ('one enrolled course') and, crucially, when NOT to use it: file/PDF content is out of scope, implying a different tool is needed for that. What it lacks is an explicit pointer to the alternative tool or any prerequisite about enrollment/visibility, so the agent must infer where to go for file content.

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