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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the resource scope (60M+ pages, public domain) and the specific return fields (IDs, titles, authors, etc.), which goes beyond annotations. It does not contradict annotations. Slight deduction for not detailing pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover safety.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then context, return fields, and sibling pointer. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it includes promotional details (world's largest, 60M+ pages) that are not essential for tool usage, adding slight verbosity. Still concise overall.

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 the output schema exists (not shown but indicated) and the schema covers all parameters, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (specific fields and URLs), provides the catalog scope, and names the sibling for full-text. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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%, with each parameter (query, page, limit) described in the schema. The description reiterates that query matches across title/author/subject/publisher, which is already in the schema's query description. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search) on a defined resource (BHL catalog) across explicit fields (title, author, subject, publisher). It clearly differentiates from the sibling bhl.literature.fulltext by naming it and its distinct scope. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly directs users to bhl.literature.fulltext for full-text searches, providing a clear when-to-use alternative. The description implies that this tool is for metadata/keyword searches, which is sufficient context. It does not mention by_subject, but the primary alternative is covered.

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