search_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are limited to headings, page numbers, and snippets (never full text), and that search is accent-insensitive and supports Greek and English. This goes beyond a simple 'searches documents' statement. It doesn't mention pagination or behavior on no results, but for a search tool this is solid coverage.

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 three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It is concise, every sentence adds value (purpose, output type/follow-up, language behavior), and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate for the core purpose but incomplete for parameters. It explains the return type (headings, page numbers, snippets) but omits any guidance on how to use 'document' or 'chunk_type' filters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format, but the parameter semantics gap makes it not fully complete.

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, but it does not. It implies 'query' is the search term via 'Full-text search,' but never explains 'limit,' 'document,' or 'chunk_type.' The 'document' parameter likely filters to a specific document, which is a significant omission given the description says 'every processed document.' The lack of parameter explanation is a clear 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Full-text search across every processed document.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by being 'the entry point for any question about library content' and explicitly notes it returns 'headings, page numbers and short snippets, never full text,' which separates it from get_pages and get_chunk. The verb and resource are 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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'This is the entry point for any question about library content' establishes when to use it, and 'Follow up with get_pages or get_chunk for the passages that look right' names the alternatives and the condition for switching. It also warns 'never full text,' implying those follow-ups are needed for full content. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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