unsw_find_course_outline

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the tool is public and requires no login, and it explains that the same course in different semesters or campuses results in different outlines, which informs the agent about potential multiple results and data model nuances.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Each sentence adds distinct information: functionality, data model nuance, and access requirements. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns (semester versions and coids), access condition, and data model nuance. It does not mention the optional 'year' or 'limit' parameters, but given no output schema and simple parameter set, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 67%, with course_code and year described. The tool description reinforces that the search is by course_code but does not add information about the 'year' or 'limit' parameters. Since the schema already covers most semantics, the description is adequate but not compensatory for the missing 'limit' explanation.

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 a specific action: search UNSW official course outlines by course code. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'unsw_fetch_course_outline' by emphasizing the search/find functionality and returning semester versions with coids, which implies a lookup step before fetching a specific outline.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to find course outlines by course code. It implies that the returned coid can be used to fetch details, likely via the sibling tool 'unsw_fetch_course_outline', but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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