LIBRIS Xsearch — Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'boolean queries' and structured field support but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether it's read-only, how boolean syntax works, pagination limits beyond what schema states, default output format, rate limits, or auth requirements. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is warranted.

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?

Single-sentence description, zero wasted words. The sentence is informative and front-loaded with the action verb ('Search') and resource ('LIBRIS'). This is appropriately concise for a straightforward search tool.

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 search tool with 14 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is functional but minimal. The rich parameter set (structured field search) deserves a bit more depth—how booleans work, how the general query interacts with structured fields, and how results are ordered. However, the schema covers parameters well, and the tool's search semantics are mostly self-evident, keeping this at a tolerable 3 rather than lower.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters with individual descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'structured field support and boolean queries,' which hints at how fields (title, author, subject, etc.) and query work together. However, it doesn't explain the boolean query syntax or how fields combine with the general query parameter—that would be useful beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 'Search LIBRIS (Swedish National Library) with structured field support and boolean queries' clearly identifies the resource (LIBRIS/Swedish National Library) and the specific capability (structured field search and boolean queries). It distinguishes it from the OpenLibrary/Google/Crossref siblings by naming LIBRIS specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate the boolean/structured-field angle from sibling search tools.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Given the dense sibling list with multiple search tools (books_openlibrary_search, books_google_search, scholarly_openalex_search_works), an agent might benefit from knowing when LIBRIS is the right choice (e.g., Swedish national catalog coverage), but no such guidance is offered.

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