cinii_search_libraries

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context: the live endpoint, the unified envelope with record_type 'library', and where the library ID appears.

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 two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the useful integration detail. There is no filler or repetition.

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 annotations, input schema, and existing output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: endpoint currency, envelope shape, and the key output field used by a sibling tool. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears absent.

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 itself documents the name partial-match behavior, page parameter mapping, and sort semantics, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds cross-tool meaning for extra.library_id, but it does not add parameter usage details beyond 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 verb and resource: finding NACSIS-CAT member libraries by name. It also explicitly relates the tool to cinii_get_holdings via extra.library_id, helping distinguish it from generic search siblings.

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 clearly implies use when looking up libraries by name and explains that the returned library ID is consumed by cinii_get_holdings. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus other cinii_search_* tools, but the context is clear.

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