search_library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and world-boundary are covered structurally. The description reinforces the local-only boundary ('does not search the internet'), which is useful confirmation, but adds nothing about result ordering, truncation, or what the limit cap implies behaviorally.

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?

Three short lines: purpose, exclusion/alternative, and examples. The scoping constraint and the routing hint are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information an agent needs. No filler.

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?

For a read-only local search tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, boundary, alternatives, and usage examples. Nothing needed to invoke 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 all three parameters (query, service, limit) are already documented in the schema itself. The description's 'by title' adds a marginal hint about what the query matches against, but provides no syntax, matching rules, or service-switching guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (search), resource (local Sonarr/Radarr library), and scope qualifier (what is already added) in the first sentence. It also distinguishes itself from the internet-facing siblings by name (add_series/add_movie), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case ('Does not search the internet') and names the alternative tools to use instead. The two natural-language example queries ('Do I have The Capture?') make the intended invocation context unambiguous.

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