search_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Search' and 'reference material' convey a read-only lookup, and the searchable dimensions are named, but the description does not disclose result format, matching behavior (fuzzy vs exact), or any rate limits. This is adequate but thin 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately communicates the action, target, and search scope.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the core purpose and search dimensions. While there is no explicit mention of return values or pagination, the scope is sufficiently bounded for a straightforward 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (query and limit are described in the schema), which warrants a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the query can match title, key, or style, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'What to look for.'

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') with a clear resource ('bundled notation library') and search dimensions ('by title, key or style'). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_library and notation_reference, which suggest broader or different access to the same 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 provides clear context: it is for finding reference material in the bundled library via title, key, or style. It implies when to use it (targeted search) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as read_library or state when not to use it.

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