Search BC Curriculum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (source type, course, subject, grade metadata) and mentioning the limit default/max, exceeding what annotations alone provide. No contradictions found.

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 with a clear purpose sentence, an Args block listing parameters concisely, and a Returns section. It front-loads the main action and includes no fluff. The Args block mirrors the schema, but it's compact and aids readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description adequately covers return values by describing the metadata fields. All parameters are documented with defaults and constraints in both schema and description. Missing details like pagination or error handling are not critical for a search tool, so completeness is good.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args block repeats schema information but adds examples for query (e.g., 'empathetic design thinking') and subject (e.g., 'adst'), offering slightly more pragmatic guidance without substantially expanding semantics.

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 BC curriculum (K-12) for specific content types and returns structured results with metadata. It identifies the resource and action, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_cross_curricular, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies it is the general full-text search tool for curriculum content, but it does not state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_cross_curricular or get_course_curriculum. No when-not guidance or explicit alternatives are provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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