academy_search

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as returning ranked matches with snippets and ids. However, it does not mention pagination, result size, or edge cases. The annotation already covers safety, so the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, and ends with a clear usage cue. There is no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return type (matches with snippets and ids). It also covers the scope (whole curriculum) and the use case. It does not mention limit behavior, but the schema covers that, so the description is fairly complete for an agent.

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 67% (query and locale have descriptions; limit has no description but includes min/max/default). The description does not mention any parameters, but the schema provides adequate semantics for a simple search tool. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so a 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches curriculum (lessons, playbooks, recipes) by keyword and returns ranked matches with snippets and ids. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like academy_lessons or academy_playbook by specifying cross-content search, and from generic 'search' by its curriculum scope.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'when the user asks about a topic and you want the most relevant material.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like specific retrieval tools (e.g., academy_lesson) or generic search for non-curriculum content.

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