Search modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the returned fields (module number/version, title, language(s), credits, grading, responsible person, organizational unit), which is helpful, but omits limitations like result count, pagination, or the partial-match behavior for titles (only described in the schema). No contradictions with annotations.

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 core purpose, then the use case, then return fields, and finally an alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main purpose and return fields, but misses important operational details such as partial title matching, caching/refresh behavior (beyond the schema), and any limits on result size. It is adequate but not fully complete for confident tool selection.

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 describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context for the 'query' parameter (title or exact module number) but does not add meaningful semantics for 'refresh' or 'semester' beyond the schema.

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 TU Berlin Moses modules by title or exact module number,' with a concrete example ('Computer Vision'). It also distinguishes itself from get_module_details by noting when to use the latter for full descriptions and degree program information.

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 explicit context: 'Useful for discovering/recommending modules by topic' and directs users to use get_module_details for full descriptions and degree programs. However, it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement for other sibling tools like search_degree_programs or list_area_modules.

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