search_courses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what the pagination behavior returns, result ordering, or how the default institution resolution works. 'defaults to the configured one' adds some context about the institution parameter but little else.

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?

Arg-style list with each parameter on its own line, clear and scannable. Content is directly useful. Slightly verbose per-item phrasing but overall efficient and front-loaded with the purpose statement.

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?

Despite no annotations, the description documents all 8 parameters with semantic detail including format examples and default behavior. It covers pagination via limit/offset. An output schema exists but is not shown, and the description doesn't describe return semantics, which is acceptable given output schema presence. Reasonably complete for a filterable search tool.

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 fully compensate. It adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names: keyword is 'free-text search on code or name,' faculty accepts 'code or full name,' course_type accepts 'code or full name,' limit encodes value range (1-100), and institution mentions an example ('tue') and default behavior. This is solid semantic enrichment.

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 states a clear verb (Search) and resource (courses) with optional filters. It lists filter fields explicitly. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like list_courses or get_course beyond the word 'Search,' leaving some ambiguity about when this vs list_courses should be used.

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 communicates this is a search with filters but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like list_courses or get_course. The usage context is implied by 'Search' + filter params, but no exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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