Search Library Source

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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by distinguishing [full text] sources, which support read/ingest, from [metadata] sources, which return discovery info and external URLs 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?

Two short, purposeful paragraphs: the core action, the key alternative, and source-type capability guidance. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 strong schema (100% parameter coverage), explicit output schema, and annotations, the description covers the remaining operational context: which source to target, how to route to library_ask, and what result types to expect from metadata-only sources. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by framing the query as a structured search of a specific source rather than a natural-language question, which reinforces the query and source parameters without replacing the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Search a specific library source by name') and names the resource (library source). It also differentiates from library_ask, which handles natural-language queries across multiple sources, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It explicitly says to use library_ask instead for natural language queries across multiple sources. It also explains when library_read and library_ingest apply based on [full text] source markings, giving clear routing to the relevant siblings.

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