Archive: Search Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields: case-insensitive and Turkish-aware matching, the AND semantics when multiple filters are combined, and which term is used by default. Only the truncation/limit behavior is left implicit.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: scope first, matching semantics second, routing guidance third, return keys last. No filler sentences, though the third sentence packs several behavioral claims into one long clause.

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 an output schema present, the description need not define return shape, yet it usefully flags match_count, truncated and coverage. Combined with annotations this covers nearly everything an agent needs; only the limit parameter's meaning is unaddressed.

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 carries the burden and does well: it explains that filters combine with AND, that term defaults to the archive's current term, and clarifies course_code/course_name/instructor/day as fragments. The 'limit' parameter is never explained, which is the one gap.

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 (search) and resource (sections) with explicit scope: one whole term across all branches. It enumerates the filter dimensions and explicitly contrasts with archive_term_sections, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition ('use this when the branch is unknown or the question spans branches') and names the alternative tool (archive_term_sections) with the case it serves. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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