search_courses

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: 'optional section filters ... applied client-side' and what the response contains (courses with sections, schedule, instructor, seat availability). This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate client-side filtering behavior.

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?

Three sentences, all high-signal: purpose, matching criteria, return content, and filter behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details. The structure is front-loaded with the primary action and scopes the tool effectively.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and highlights the client-side filtering behavior. It does not mention result ordering, pagination, or limits, which could matter for a search tool, but the description covers all core functionality and parameter semantics sufficiently for an agent to select and call it.

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 high (83%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining searchTerm semantics ('Matches course codes, titles, and descriptions') with concrete examples, which is absent from the schema. Other parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a concrete resource ('USC course catalog'), and the matching scope ('course codes, titles, and descriptions'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_course (single course) and list_courses_by_program (program-based listing) by emphasizing keyword search and returning sections with schedule/instructor/availability.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when searching the catalog by arbitrary keyword. It includes examples and mentions the optional filters. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as when listing all courses by program or fetching a specific course.

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