ed_search_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details such as result format, pagination behavior, or search scope limitations. It is consistent with the annotations but provides minimal extra 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 a single, short sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is too terse for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of thread titles, full thread content), how response_format affects the output, or any search behavior limitations. The schema covers parameter details but leaves the return value and usage context unspecified, making the description incomplete for an agent.

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 schema provides descriptions for query, course_id, and response_format (75% coverage), leaving only limit undocumented. The description itself adds no parameter-specific context beyond the general 'by keyword' reference to query. Since the schema carries most of the semantic weight, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'search discussions by keyword in an Ed course.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (discussions), which distinguishes it from siblings like ed_list_threads (listing all threads) and ed_get_thread (retrieving a single thread).

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 the use case (keyword-based search) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternative tools like ed_list_threads or provide exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving usage boundaries unclear.

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