Search Purdue student organizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the source (BoilerLink/Anthology Engage, live) and the number of organizations (~1,200), which is helpful, but it omits key behaviors such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, order of results, or any side effects. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a search tool with zero 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 a single sentence followed by a source attribution. It front-loads the purpose and includes a helpful number of organizations and data source. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.

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 is complete enough for the parameter coverage but lacks any mention of the output format or return structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing what fields are returned (e.g., organization name, description, contact info). For a search tool, this is a notable gap. The description otherwise covers the source and scope adequately.

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% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides: 'query' is described as 'Keyword, e.g. 'robotics', 'a cappella', 'finance' and 'limit' has default and range. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'BoilerLink's directory of ~1,200 registered student organizations by name or keyword.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like search_events or search_club_events which search different entities.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, implying usage context but lacking explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. Among many search-related siblings, this omission could confuse the agent.

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