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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the output format ('canonical titles with their category') and the search scope (all books in the library, by title substring). It does not contradict annotations and provides context beyond the structured metadata.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key criteria. Every clause adds information, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, search criteria, and return format. It omits minor details like result ordering or limit behavior, but these are either in the schema or not critical for a basic search operation.

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 schema already describes 'contains' and 'category_path' with examples. The description reinforces that the search is on titles, but does not add meaningful detail about the 'limit' parameter, which is undocumented in the schema. With 67% schema coverage, the description only marginally compensates for the gap, so it is adequate but not exceptional.

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 clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'list of all books in the library', and the specific criteria (English or Hebrew title, optional category path). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_library, which likely searches full text, by focusing on titles. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for finding books by title, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_library or get_book_info. There is no mention of exclusions or specific conditions that would trigger use of this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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