Search the Aziel Digital Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds the corpus scope and the exclusion of private-file searches. It does not disclose further behaviors like authentication, rate limits, or return format, but the bar is lowered by 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and scope. No filler; every phrase adds information.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple read-only lookup but leaves the meaning of 'example' and 'skill' modes undefined and does not mention what the response contains or how q behaves across modes. Given no output schema, an agent gets only partial guidance.

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 documents op values ('search (default), example, or skill') and the description repeats that mapping with 'aziel-corpus search / example / skill'. The q parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description; only the tool name and 'lookup' imply it is a query string. 50% coverage leaves room for more.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Read-only library lookup' of the Aziel Digital Library, with explicit scope (aziel-corpus search/example/skill). The negative clause 'Not a private-file search engine' adds a boundary, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like runtime_skill.

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?

Implies usage for aziel-corpus lookups and excludes private-file searches, but provides no explicit when-to-use comparisons or alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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