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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that 'current versions are returned by default,' which hints at the includeSuperseded parameter behavior. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it describe side effects, pagination behavior, or sorting. The single behavioral note adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, which is positive. However, it is under-specified: two short sentences omit essential parameter details and usage context. While each sentence earns its place, the brevity compromises completeness.

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 search tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a query, how pagination works, what the response looks like, or the effect of limit/cursor. An agent would need to infer too much.

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 only 25% (only cursor has a description). The description barely compensates: it alludes to includeSuperseded via 'current versions are returned by default' but does not explain query (search term) or limit (result cap). With three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the tool is under-specified for effective invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('hybrid-search') and resource ('project Library'), which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like list_library and read_library_item by implying a search functionality, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. Overall, it is 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use list_library instead, nor does it specify any exclusions (e.g., 'to browse all items, use list_library'). The context is implied but the user is left to infer.

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