search_study_guide

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral detail: anonymous access, 30 results per page, continuation via nextOffset, and a clear statement that it returns public course codes and source links rather than enrollment status. No contradiction 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, pagination behavior is stated compactly, and the return-scope caveat about Brightspace is included without unnecessary detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description summarizes the return content well (public course codes and source links) and covers access and pagination. It could more explicitly connect nextOffset to the offset parameter, but overall it provides enough information for an agent to call the 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 that query is a name or code search, academicYear must be explicit, and pagination works through 30-result pages and nextOffset. Language semantics are not explicitly described, but the enum makes that relatively self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching the official public TU Delft Study Guide by name or code for an explicit academic year. It also differentiates itself from related search tools by clarifying it returns public codes and source links, not Brightspace enrollment status.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: anonymous access, searching the public study guide, and requiring an explicit academic year. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among siblings.

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