search_literature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the search is a case-insensitive substring match on the library_seeded SQLite table. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only.

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 structure: a one-line summary followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more compact but adequate.

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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the purpose, parameters with details, and search mechanics. It mentions the table and matching approach, making it complete for a search tool.

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 description adds significant meaning to the parameters beyond the input schema. It explains 'query' is case-insensitive substring match, 'field' lists specific column values, and 'limit' has a default. The schema has 0% description coverage, so this compensates well.

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 the user's literature database and specifies it uses a SQLite table. It gives a specific verb (search) and resource (literature database). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_literature_extended or search_library.

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 suggests using the tool to find papers by keywords, but lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over similar siblings (e.g., search_literature_extended, scan_literature). No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned.

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