search_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the search scope ('across current courses') and that it matches by title, but it does not disclose details like result ordering, limit, or whether partial matches are returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and scope before giving illustrative examples. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains what to search for, the scope, and gives concrete query examples. It could go slightly further by noting whether results are limited or how matches are ranked, but nothing essential for a basic invocation is missing.

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?

The query parameter has no schema description, but the tool description compensates by explaining that the query is a title search and providing realistic examples. The course parameter already has a schema description, so the description does not need to repeat it. Overall, it adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description states a specific action (Find) and resource (modules/topics by title) with clear scope (across current courses). Concrete examples ('syllabus', 'hw3', 'lecture 5 slides') make the purpose immediately understandable and distinct from sibling tools like get_content or read_content, which imply direct retrieval rather than search.

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 to use this tool: when you need to locate modules/topics by title, especially with user-like queries such as 'syllabus' or 'hw3'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the examples and scope make the intended use case clear.

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