loc_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. The description adds useful breadth context (40M+ items, formats) but doesn't mention pagination behavior, response format, or other operational details. This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.

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 redundancy; the action, scope, and examples are front-loaded efficiently. Every word contributes to understanding.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate for unknown return values. It lacks any mention of what the search returns or how results are structured. Schema covers pagination/sorting, but output behavior is left completely unspecified.

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 parameters. The description's example queries add a bit of semantic nuance for the 'q' parameter, but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond schema fields is provided.

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: 'Search the Library of Congress across 40M+ items' with a specific verb and resource, and lists content types (books, maps, photos, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like loc_item_detail, which focus on specific items or other formats.

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 gives clear context that this is a broad, cross-format search tool, with example queries demonstrating appropriate use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for item details) or name alternatives, so it gains partial credit.

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