search_libgen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Search LibGen mirrors', implying possible mirror failover or aggregation, but offers no details on error handling, result format, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but conciseness is not achieved at the cost of informativeness. Key details about parameters, behavior, and context are missing, making it under-specified rather than efficiently compact.

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 tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values, pagination, error handling, or typical usage patterns, leaving a high burden on the agent to infer correct usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no titles or descriptions beyond bare names), and the tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, search_type, limit, allowed_extensions). The agent gets no semantic guidance beyond schema structure, which is inadequate for correct usage.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('LibGen mirrors'), and specifies the content type as 'supplemental research material'. This differentiates it from siblings like search_scihub (which targets Sci-Hub) and search_literature (which might be broader). However, it could be more precise about what kind of material (e.g., books, papers, etc.) is found.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_literature or inspect_libgen_item. The description does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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