search_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs substring search across indexed references (Zotero-synced + manual), matches against multiple fields, and returns newest first. It also mentions the scope (local library) and intent (avoiding internet lookups). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or mention rate limits, though these are implied by context.

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 structured with clear paragraphs: overview, differentiation, scope/order, and Args/Returns. It is front-loaded with purpose and alternatives. While not overly long, it contains more detail than strictly necessary, making it slightly less concise than ideal. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, alternative tools, parameter details, return format, and ordering. The output schema exists, but the description also describes the return format, which is not redundant. No gaps remain.

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 does so with an 'Args' section explaining query as substring matching against metadata and limit as maximum results (with default 10 and ordering by newest year first). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though it could be slightly more precise about the substring behavior.

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 for matching papers, specifying it searches metadata (title/authors/abstract/tags). This uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_pdf_knowledge and search_fulltext.

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 tells when to use this tool ('find what they already have before going to the internet') and when not to, naming alternatives: search_pdf_knowledge for meaning-based PDF search, search_fulltext for exact keyword search, and search_literature for external lookup. This provides clear guidance.

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