Search courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious constraint beyond the annotations: only the first 300 matches are reachable and the total is capped at 300, which materially shapes how an agent queries. It stops short of describing pagination interaction with that cap (e.g. whether page 1000 with limit 50 is reachable), so not 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?

Two compact blocks: the search scope and returned attributes first, then the cap constraint and routing to alternatives. No filler sentences; every clause carries actionable information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the fields the results carry. Given a simple 4-parameter search tool, the disclosed cap, the absence of filters, and the next-step tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 100%, with each of the four parameters (query, page, limit, sorting) documented in the schema including defaults, bounds and the sorting enum, so baseline 3 applies. The description corroborates the query semantics (Persian or English free text) but adds nothing about page/limit/sorting behavior.

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 ('Full-text search of courses by title/topic') and enumerates the attributes surfaced (price, discount, hours, rating, students, teachers), which lets an agent distinguish it from the browsing siblings. The closing pointer to mkh_course further pins down its role in the toolset.

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?

Explicitly says the site offers no filters here and names three concrete alternatives (mkh_browse, mkh_free_courses, mkh_cheapest) for level/price/type/category filtering, plus the follow-up step (mkh_course for a single id). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both spelled out.

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