loc_browse_format

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or return format. It only reiterates the browse-by-format scope, which is largely semantic rather than behavioral. Since annotations cover safety, a score of 3 (baseline with annotations) is appropriate, but no extra credit is earned.

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 sentences long and front-loaded: it states the primary action and resource first, then provides the list of accepted formats in a compact, scannable line. Every word earns its place with no fluff 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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, one required enum, no output schema), the description plus schema fully covers the inputs and purpose. It doesn't explain return values, but for a list-browsing tool with readOnlyHint, that's a minor omission. The format list and clear action provide sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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% with all parameters described: format (enum), q (search within format), and page (page number). The description lists the enum values again, but this is redundant with the schema. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse Library of Congress items by format/media type.' It uses a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('Library of Congress items') and lists the exact formats accepted. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like loc_search or loc_collection_browse, the format-scoped browsing distinguishes it from general search or collection browsing, making the purpose clear.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for browsing by format/media type, implying use when a user wants to explore items within a specific format rather than searching across all collections. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous due to the format list, so no further guidance is needed for basic usage.

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