search_library

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

With no annotations, the description relies on its own transparency. It discloses the search scope and fields, which is adequate for a simple read-only search. However, it does not mention behavior like pagination, ordering, or case sensitivity.

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 concise, with a clear header and parameter list. It front-loads the key information. No unnecessary sentences.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the basics of what is searched and required parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and parameter semantics for a fully rounded picture.

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. It explains query as 'Search terms' and limit as 'Maximum results (default 10)'. That restates the schema but adds no additional semantics (e.g., allowed syntax for query).

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 searches a local literature library and specifies the fields searched (title, authors, abstract, tags, journal). It distinguishes from siblings only by mentioning 'local' but does not explicitly contrast with similar search_literature 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_literature_extended. The description does not specify prerequisites or exclude scenarios.

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