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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the return content (a true total count plus a page of citations with bib id, parallel titles, imprint, material type) and the fixed pagination behavior, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then query-language support, then scoping and paging. Dense but every sentence carries information with no filler; minor parenthetical examples could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains return values and pagination, and annotations cover the safety profile, so an agent has what it needs to call the tool. The one missing piece is differentiation from the sibling nplg_dlibrary_search and nplg_record_marc tools.

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 documents all four parameters, including the scope enum and offset semantics. The description reinforces scope with example materials and restates script support and the 50-per-page page size, but adds little beyond the structured fields, 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 and resource (search the union catalogue of the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia) and the searchable indexes (keyword, title, author, subject). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names or distinguishes itself from the obvious siblings nplg_dlibrary_search and nplg_record_marc, which an agent would need to route between.

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?

Usage is only implied: it notes that queries work in Georgian or Latin script and that material can be narrowed via `scope`. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the sibling catalogue/MARC tools, leaving the agent to infer which NPLG tool to pick.

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