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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context. It does: it discloses the return shape (true result total plus a page of records with biblionumber and catalogue URL), record language (Georgian with parallel Latin titles), and pagination granularity (20 per page via offset) — useful behavior beyond the annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the searchable resource and what it returns. It stays efficient while remaining informative, though it packs several facts per sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values, and it does so (result total, record page, biblionumber, catalogue URL), plus language and paging behavior. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains index, query, and offset including the enum and page size. The description repeats the index list and page size but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (the National Archives of Georgia scientific reference library catalogue / Koha ILS), plus the searchable indexes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like archives_library_record, archives_film_search, and archives_fonds_browse.

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 gives clear context for what the tool searches, but never states when to use it versus alternatives such as archives_library_record (record lookup by biblionumber) or search_within. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided, so usage must be inferred.

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