Get a Library concept

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output format (markdown), the content scope, and the exact-slug requirement, which are genuinely useful behavioral details. It does not discuss potential errors, output length, or non-existent-slug behavior, but the key behavior is well conveyed.

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, each earning its place: what the tool returns, when to use it, and what prerequisite knowledge is needed. 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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, content, usage trigger, and parameter provenance, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 already fully documents the slug parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by emphasizing that the slug must be exact and should be obtained from search or list results, which helps agents avoid guessing or constructing invalid slugs.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: explaining a trading concept using the Library's full markdown write-up. It lists the content components (definition, formula, trader interpretation, indicator implementations), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like library_get_indicator or library_get_source_code.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use for any what is X / how does X work question.' It also routes the agent to library_search or library_list_concepts to obtain the required slug. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions versus siblings, so it misses the top score.

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