loc_collection_browse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior, result format, or any quirks. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still adds minimal value beyond what annotations convey.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence provides a practical prerequisite. 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?

For a simple read-only browse tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the purpose, provides a workflow for getting the required slug, and is backed by good annotations. It could optionally mention that 'q' and 'page' are optional filters, but the schema already documents these, so this is not a significant gap.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, including examples for 'slug' (e.g., 'civil-war-maps'). Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds the contextual hint that slugs come from loc_collections, but this does not add meaning beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Browse a specific Library of Congress collection.' The verb 'browse' and resource 'specific Library of Congress collection' are specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like loc_search or loc_browse_format, but the focus on a specific collection is clear enough.

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 a clear workflow directive: 'Use loc_collections first to find collection slugs.' This tells the agent how to obtain the required slug parameter, but it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like loc_search or loc_browse_format. It offers clear context without exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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