Search Cross-Curricular Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is established. The description adds the return format: 'Groups of curriculum items connected by shared language across subjects,' which is useful. It does not elaborate on pagination, error behavior, or edge cases, but for a read-only search tool, the combination of annotations and return description provides sufficient transparency.

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 well-structured: a purpose statement, a list of parameters with examples, and a return note. It is efficient and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. While the parameter list adds length, it is justified given the five parameters and the benefit of examples. There is minimal filler.

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?

For a search tool with five parameters, two required, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return type. The main missing element is explicit usage guidance relative to siblings, but that gap is already scored under usage guidelines. Given the annotations and schema richness, the description is overall complete for practical invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description goes further by providing concrete examples (e.g., subject slugs, focus values, query terms) and clarifying how parameters interact, such as 'query' narrowing results. This adds meaning beyond the schema and helps an agent construct valid calls.

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's function: finding curriculum elements shared between two or more subjects at the same grade level. It specifies the resource (curriculum elements), the verb (find/identifies), and the specific types (competencies, big ideas, content). The phrase 'cross-curricular' and reference to interdisciplinary planning distinguish it from single-subject search siblings like search_curriculum.

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 mentions it is 'essential for interdisciplinary planning,' which implies a use case, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as search_curriculum or get_competency_connections. No conditions or exclusions are given, leaving an agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice versus alternatives. Some guidance on when not to use it would improve clarity.

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