search_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful structural context (each offer carries up to five dated sessions and only a date id unlocks full detail), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/size parameters.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The stray line break is cosmetic rather than a comprehension problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description correctly focuses on the get_course follow-up. Minor omissions remain around pagination defaults and result ordering, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 71%, so the schema already documents state, keyword, location, radius_km and remote_only. The description adds no syntax or format detail for any parameter and only alludes to date ids, which are not themselves an input here. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (further-training courses / Weiterbildungssuche of KURSNET), which is enough to separate it from search_jobs and search_professions by domain alone. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling for disambiguation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear usage context: results carry up to five dates each, and a date id should be passed to get_course for details like funding, costs, contacts and requirements. That is a concrete when-to-use chain, but there is no 'when not to use' or exclusion guidance.

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