search_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search intent and gives no information about whether the operation is read-only, how matches are ranked, whether pagination applies, or what the response contains.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter search tool, though it sacrifices some helpful contextual detail for brevity.

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 one-parameter lookup tool this is minimally viable: an agent can infer the intended call. But with no output schema, no annotation context, and an unaddressed sibling tool, the description leaves gaps around expected return value and when to prefer this over search_docs.

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 input schema provides only a bare string with minLength 1 and no description, so the phrase 'by name' adds meaningful semantics by indicating the query should be a library name. However, it does not clarify whether matching is exact, partial, case-insensitive, or fuzzy, leaving some ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('documented library') and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by name'). It is distinguishable from the sibling search_docs at the resource level, though 'documented library' is slightly ambiguous about whether it means libraries of documentation or documentation about libraries.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of search_docs, nor any contextual hints such as prerequisites or result handling. The sibling tool is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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