Find Open Course Sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — it searches public department schedule data rather than the user's own enrollment — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or freshness of seat counts, which is the key risk for an availability query.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and filter, with no filler or redundancy. Nothing in it is wasted, though brevity here comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, but with 0% schema description coverage the description leaves core search semantics (free-text query, program type filtering, seat threshold behavior) undefined. For a 4-parameter search tool with an open-world annotation, this is too thin for reliable invocation.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden and mostly fails. "Department schedules" loosely maps to department_codes and "available seats" to min_available_seats, but query and program_type (default "LS") are entirely unexplained, including whether query is a free-text course search.

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 ("Find") and resource ("sections with available seats") with a scoping qualifier ("public OBS department schedules"), which separates it from personal-schedule siblings like get_course_sections or obs_get_schedule. However, it never names or contrasts with the close alternatives (get_course_sections, obs_search_courses, archive_search_sections), leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_course_sections (all sections) versus this tool (open seats only). The "available seats" framing hints at intent but the agent must guess which sibling to pick.

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