search_courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'search' implies a read-only operation and the per_page parameter hints at pagination, but the description does not explicitly state that it returns matching courses, how results are ordered, or any access/rate expectations. It is not misleading, but it adds only minimal behavioral depth.

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 conveys the core purpose with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning its place despite omitting some useful contextual details.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the description is minimally sufficient and the schema fully documents inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to infer the return shape and precise search semantics, and it receives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over 'list_courses'.

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 has 100% description coverage for both parameters, including defaults and descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 names a concrete action ('search') and resource ('courses') and clarifies scope ('across the account'). It is clearly distinct from 'get_course' and 'list_courses' in intent, but it does not explicitly describe what the search matches (e.g., name/code) or name the sibling it is meant to replace, making sibling differentiation only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool over 'list_courses' or when not to use it. The verb 'search' implies a lookup-by-term use case, but alternatives, exclusions, and recommended selection criteria are left entirely unstated.

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