program_course_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the fields returned, but does not say whether the search is exhaustive or paginated, whether results are limited, whether prerequisites are resolved recursively, or whether it requires enrollment or login — all material for an unannotated tool.

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 cross-source scope and then the returned attributes; every clause carries information. It is slightly clipped, packing four concepts into a single line, but there is no filler to cut.

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 three-parameter, read-only-looking lookup with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and sketches the return payload. It still leaves the relationship to the five neighboring program_* tools undefined, which is the largest completeness gap for an agent choosing among them.

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%, so every parameter (keyword substring, detail toggle, common_only catalog restriction) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the framing that 跨源 spans catalogs and plans, which lightly contextualizes common_only but provides no new syntax or semantics.

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 names a specific verb-resource pair — course search — and states the two sources it spans (the general-education catalog and the major training programs) plus what it returns (归属/学分/先修). That is far more specific than a restated title, though it never names the near siblings program_courses or program_curriculum, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase 跨源 implicitly signals that this tool aggregates across sources, which hints that it should be preferred when the source is unknown. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, prerequisite, or named alternative, so the routing decision against program_courses and program_curriculum is left to inference.

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