search-all-content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the scope (all courses, optionally one) and content types searched. However, it does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or how results are returned.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Zoek door ALLES') and efficiently lists what is searched. It is appropriate in length and structure for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the search scope and optional filtering. However, it lacks details about return format (e.g., list of results, relevant information) and any behavioral caveats.

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 high (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by listing the content types (pages, modules, assignments, announcements, files) and reinforcing that it searches across all courses, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches 'through EVERYTHING: pages, modules, assignments, announcements and files across all courses'. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource category ('ALLES'), effectively distinguishing from the get-* specific sibling tools.

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 indicates this is a broad search tool across all courses, with optional filtering by courseId. It implicitly suggests using sibling get-* tools for specific resources. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.

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