library_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the search scope (title, authors, abstract) and the offline nature. It does not mention pagination or performance, but for a simple search tool, this is adequate.

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 compact, with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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 has an output schema (indicated in context signals) and two simple parameters, the description provides all necessary context. It explains the search fields, offline nature, and return type.

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 schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), but the description fully explains both parameters: 'keyword' is matched against title/authors/abstract, and 'limit' controls maximum results (default 50). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool searches the local paper library by keyword across title, authors, and abstract. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('local paper library'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'search_papers' by emphasizing it's an offline operation.

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 explicitly notes this is an offline operation with no network calls, guiding users to choose this tool over online search alternatives. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context provided is sufficient.

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