search_course_materials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns sources, snippets, retrieval dates, and exact readTool arguments where available, and it operates on a local index that must be pre-populated. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states scope, the second states return values and the crucial local-index caveat. The prerequisite for building coverage is placed near the end without diluting the core message. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operational aspects: what is searched, what is returned, how to prepare the index, and the non-live limitation. It could be more complete by explaining limit's maximum/ordering behavior, but an agent can call this tool correctly with the given information.

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 only 33%, with only courseId described, and the description itself does not explain query or limit semantics. While query's role is inferable from the tool's search purpose, limit's behavior, bounds, and default are only in the schema. The description should compensate for low schema coverage but does not.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact scope: retrieved lecture text, course metadata, announcement attachments, own submissions, and feedback. It explicitly contrasts with 'not a live global Brightspace search,' which distinguishes it from broader search siblings like search_catalog and search_mail. This is a clear, resource-specific purpose statement.

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 actionable context: 'Build coverage with start_course_sync or the relevant file reader' tells the agent what must happen before this tool is useful. It also warns 'this is not a live global Brightspace search,' which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for live searching, but the guidance is sufficient for correct routing.

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