search_courses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the catalog is public and needs no authentication, and hits are returned numbered, which matters for chaining into a detail lookup. Return format and paging behavior are not described, keeping it shy of 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The German and English halves partially duplicate each other, which is a small redundancy but serves bilingual readers.

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 a two-parameter search with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, prerequisites and the shape of the result (numbered hits). It does not explain result fields or that the default limit is 10, but the schema covers the latter, so nothing essential 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 100%, so both query and limit are fully documented in the schema (including the 1-100 range). The description adds little beyond that, merely echoing the searchable fields that the query schema also lists. That is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (search) plus the resource and its container (HISinOne-Vorlesungsverzeichnis), and names the searchable fields: title, course number, lecturer. It also says results come back numbered. It does not explicitly contrast with get_course, which fetches a single course, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'no login required, read-only' plus 'öffentlich' establishes useful preconditions, and searching is the obvious entry point of the workflow. However, there is no explicit routing advice such as 'use get_course to fetch details for a hit' or a note about when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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