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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful traits: alias-aware search ('stochastics' finds Stochastic Oscillator), coverage breadth (800+ concepts and indicators), and result contents (slugs and canonical URLs). It does not cover failure behavior or read-only guarantees, but for a search tool this is reasonable.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first names the tool and resource, the second details capability with a concrete example, the third gives usage guidance and output content. Information is front-loaded and there is zero filler.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough operational context: what is searched, when to use it, what results contain, and how results connect to sibling tools. The unusual context parameter is fully documented in the schema, so it need not be repeated here.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some nuance beyond the schema by framing query as an 'informal term or topic' and giving an alias example, but it does not add meaning to the type, limit, family, or context parameters that the schema does not already provide.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('the LuxAlgo Library'), and the scope ('800+ concepts' and '800+ ready-to-use indicators'). It also distinguishes the tool from its get/list siblings by noting that results 'carry slugs for the get tools' and by branding it as the entry point ('Start here').

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to start: 'Start here whenever you have a name, informal term, or topic.' It also implies the downstream workflow by saying results carry slugs for the get tools. However, it does not explicitly say 'if you already have a slug, use library_get_* instead,' so the when-not guidance is slightly implicit.

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