Search the LuxAlgo Library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful traits like alias-aware searching and that results include slugs and canonical URLs, but it doesn't explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or discuss rate limits, result limits, or behavior when no results are found. These are meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then packs additional useful context (800+ concepts, alias-aware, slugs/URLs) without any fluff or redundancy.

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 search tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool covers, the result payload (slugs, URLs), and its role relative to sibling tools. However, it could have mentioned the default type 'all' or the limit behavior, though these are covered in the schema. Slightly more detail about edge cases would make it a 5.

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 has 100% coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query is alias-aware (e.g., 'stochastics' finds Stochastic Oscillator) and covers both concepts and indicators, which goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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: to search the LuxAlgo Library, covering both concepts and indicators. It distinguishes itself from sibling get/list tools by explicitly positioning it as the starting point and noting that results carry slugs for the get tools.

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 explicitly says to 'start here whenever you have a name, informal term, or topic,' giving clear guidance on when to use it. It also implies that after getting slugs, you should use the get tools. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list tools like library_list_concepts, so it's not a perfect 5.

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