search_library_name

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It indicates the tool prevents hallucinations and yields canonical library info, but does not describe return format, error behavior, or limitations. For a simple lookup this is adequate but not rich.

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 moderately long but well-structured: a CRITICAL directive, a concise purpose statement, and a numbered usage strategy. It avoids fluff, though the purpose statement slightly overlaps with the usage steps.

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 and has an output schema (not shown) to cover return values. The description explains its role in a two-step workflow and explicitly names the next tool, making the context complete for an agent. It omits edge cases but these are less critical here.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds value by giving a concrete example (mapping 'langchain' to the specific package) and clarifying that query holds version constraints, going beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 'identifies the correct library version and official documentation source,' positioning it as a disambiguation/lookup resource. It also explicitly instructs to use it first, distinguishing it from the sibling search_latest_documentation.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Always use this tool FIRST before generating code for any third-party library.' It also includes a usage strategy that directs the agent to call search_latest_documentation with the result, establishing a clear workflow and alternative.

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