ndl_search_all

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds the useful behavioral context that one call hits all five provider sets at once. It doesn't disclose behaviors like result merging, duplication, or pagination, but with strong annotations and an output schema this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every sentence carries meaning.

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 an aggregate search tool with read-only annotations, rich nested parameter descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers the key decision (when to use all vs. narrower). It would be slightly stronger if it named the five provider sets or the narrower sibling tool names, but the sibling list and schema supply that context.

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 description says nothing about parameters. Reported schema description coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description does not compensate by explaining search fields or constraints. The nested schema does contain useful per-field descriptions (ndc, isbn, title, year, etc.), which prevents this from being a 1.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search all five declared provider sets at once.' This distinguishes it from the narrower sibling search tools by scope (all sets vs. one set), so an agent can tell it apart from ndl_search_books, ndl_search_articles, etc. without opening the 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?

It gives an explicit use condition — 'Use when the material type is unknown' — and an explicit alternative condition: 'For a bibliographic check, the narrower tools return a cleaner set.' The alternative names aren't listed verbatim, but the sibling list makes them identifiable.

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