search_group_library

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral bur. 'Search for papers' signals a read-only lookup, but it does not clarify what fields are searched, whether full text is included, or what the response shape is. Some transparency, but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple search operation.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential scope and action. It could improve by naming the alternative for personal-library search or noting what the result contains, but it is not critically incomplete.

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?

Both parameters (query and limit) are fully documented in the schema, including the default for limit. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides complete coverage, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the exact resource scope ('group (shared team) library'). This makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling like search_personal_library by naming the group context.

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 clearly establishes the use case: search within the shared team library, not the personal library. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the scope is concrete enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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