find

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the bare minimum by mentioning 'bm25 ranking, snippets, RU/EN stemming' and how book_id restricts the search. This adds meaningful context about how the tool operates internally.

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 (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently packs scope, ranking method, language support, and parameter behavior without fluff.

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 description covers the search scope, algorithm, snippets, stemming, and book_id restriction, which is substantial for a search tool with no output schema. It lacks explicit details on return format beyond 'snippets', but this is a minor gap given the sibling context and simplicity of the 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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains book_id ('restricts the search to one book') and implies query's role via 'full-text search'. However, the limit parameter is not described at all, leaving a gap in understanding its purpose and 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's function: 'Full-text search across chapters and book titles/authors in the whole library'. This specific verb ('search') and resource ('chapters, titles, authors') distinguish it from siblings like list_books or verify_quote, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage by specifying the search scope ('whole library') and the optional restriction to one book via book_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear: use this tool when you need to search content, while siblings handle listing or verification.

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