search-courses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'Returns excerpts with surrounding context', which is a behavioral detail about the output. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or limitations such as exact-match semantics. For a search tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The enumeration of all course IDs is somewhat long but informative and necessary to set expectations. There is no fluff or redundancy, and it is well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It mentions 'excerpts with surrounding context' but does not specify what fields are included (e.g., course name, link, relevance score). It also does not clarify search behavior (case sensitivity, partial matching). For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 both parameters (query and courseId) are already documented in the schema with examples. The description lists the valid course IDs in the main text, which adds some value beyond the schema (which only gives generic examples). However, this is marginal; the schema already provides the parameter purposes and formats, so the description does not significantly deepen parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Search for a term') and the resource ('all VTEX IO official courses'), listing the specific course IDs. This distinguishes it from the sibling search-concepts, which searches concepts, and other tools like lookup-block-props or lookup-vtex-api. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (searching course content) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. With a sibling search-concepts present, there is no explicit guidance on choosing between them. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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