search_courses_and_exams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses which fields are searched, which is useful, but says nothing about return format, result limits, ordering, or whether the search is case/substring sensitive.

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 with no filler; every clause (resource and searched fields) 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 one-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but leaves the agent uninformed about result shape and search behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and there is a single required 'keyword' parameter already documented as 搜索关键词. The description adds only the field scope (name/location/description) and no syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (搜索/search) and resource (杭电课程、考试和日程), plus the fields searched (名称、地点、描述). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_today/get_upcoming tools.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the keyword-based search path versus the temporal siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_today_courses_and_exams or get_upcoming_courses_and_exams, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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