Search eLearn course content

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only explains what is searched (titles and module paths) but does not mention authentication requirements, result ordering, fuzzy vs. exact matching, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is a minimal disclosure that leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and scope options. No wasted words, and the most important information (what is searched) appears first.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain parameter defaults, result format, or prerequisites like authentication. An agent would need to consult external documentation or make assumptions to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'scope' and 'courseIds' concepts (pinned, all, explicit course IDs) and hints at query semantics (titles, module paths), but completely ignores 'limit', 'maxCourses', and 'includeLinks'. For a tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient semantic guidance.

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 a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'document titles and module paths', and explicitly mentions the three scope options (pinned, all, explicit course IDs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve documents by week or course, and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 implies usage for searching across courses, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like elearn_get_week_documents or elearn_get_course_documents. It lacks direct guidance on exclusions or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose.

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