Search courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: prices are in Toman, `sale_price` only exists while a sale is running, and the response includes `related_categories` and `types` aggregates. It stops short of stating result totals or how paging terminates, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the primary follow-up action, and no sentence is filler. The second paragraph is dense and reads as a run of semicolon-joined hints rather than structured guidance, which costs it a point on structure.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the key returned fields (sale_price, related_categories, types) so the agent can plan follow-up filtering. It omits pagination behavior and total-count semantics, a minor but real gap given the page/limit parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: 'pass a slug as `category` to narrow', the interaction between `category` and `sort=most_sold`, and the currency unit behind price filtering. That is real semantic lift over enumerated fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Faradars courses and videos') plus the full facet set (text, category, price, length, certificate, instructor), which lets an agent distinguish it from fr_course (detail lookup) and fr_categories (taxonomy) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Use first to find a course; pass its `slug` to fr_course for the syllabus and full price', and 'Best sellers of a topic: category=<slug>, sort=most_sold'. Both a primary workflow and a concrete parameter recipe are supplied, so the agent knows when this tool is the entry point versus the follow-up.

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