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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool searches for a query string, without explaining search semantics (e.g., fuzzy vs exact), result format, pagination, or any side effects. This adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and target resource efficiently, making it exemplary from a conciseness standpoint.

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?

Although the tool is relatively simple, it has no output schema, so the description must help the agent understand what to expect. It fails to mention that the search can target texts or sheets (via the 'type' parameter), how results are sized (via 'size'), or any limitations of the search. This leaves a significant gap for a search tool.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (query, type, size) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely echoing 'query string' without elaborating on the type or size parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and names the resource ('Sefaria library'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which retrieve specific items rather than performing a search.

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 verb 'search' implies the tool is for query-based lookup, which contrasts with the sibling get_* tools for known references. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or contextual cues beyond the name.

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