vaglio_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses failover across sources, rate limit skipping, and response reporting of refusals. It does not mention destructive behavior (none expected) or return format, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 concise: two short paragraphs plus an Args list. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description covers the failover and response reporting. However, it could specify the return value structure (e.g., list of works) for full completeness. Still, it provides essential context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents all three parameters: query (search terms), limit (max results with budget hint), and prefer (force source). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, making the tool usable.

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 'Find works across the open bibliographic sources,' specifying the verb 'find' and the resource 'works'. It also mentions the failover behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vaglio_read or vaglio_status.

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 explains the failover behavior and the optional prefer parameter, implying when to use it (searching across multiple sources). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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