Search the LuxAlgo 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 alias-aware matching with a concrete example ('stochastics' finds Stochastic Oscillator) and discloses the key output payload: slugs for the get tools and canonical URLs. It does not mention ordering or result count semantics, but those are minor 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?

Three sentences each do distinct work: state the purpose, define the scope, and give usage plus downstream value. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 no-output-schema search tool, the description covers purpose, collection scope, alias behavior, and the usefulness of results (slugs and URLs). Parameter details are already complete in the schema. It omits exact result field structure and ranking, but this is not a blocker 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value for the required 'query' parameter: it accepts informal terms and aliases, which is not present in the schema. It does not add detail for type, limit, or family, but those are already fully described in the schema.

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 opens with the verb 'Search' against a clearly named resource, the LuxAlgo Library, and then quantifies the scope: 800+ concepts and 800+ indicators. It also differentiates itself from the library_get_* and library_list_* siblings by positioning search as the entry point that provides 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?

The description explicitly says 'Start here whenever you have a name, informal term, or topic,' giving a concrete trigger condition. It also routes the agent onward by stating results carry slugs for the get tools, implying that exact-slug lookups belong to sibling tools. It does not name specific alternatives for exclusion, but the guidance is clear enough.

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