lib_search

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

With no annotations, the description does most of the transparency work. It discloses the search scope (every local paper) and the supported FTS5 query syntax. It does not mention dependency on a local index or ordering/pagination behavior, but for a search tool this is reasonable.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: the first states the core function, the second adds a memorable priority rationale, and the third gives essential syntax. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and query syntax well. It could mention that results depend on the local index or clarify `limit`, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly from the provided information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for `query`, explaining phrase, boolean, and prefix syntax. The `limit` parameter is left to inference from its name and default, which is a minor but real gap.

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 verb and resource: full-text search across every paper already on this machine. The local-machine scope clearly distinguishes it from lit_* tools and other library utilities without needing to open schemas.

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 says 'This is the tool to reach for FIRST' and explains the strategic reason: a paper on disk that nobody searched is as inaccessible as a paywalled one. It gives clear priority context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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