Search own-account SAS catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results carry book/catalog provenance and warning that provider text is untrusted data — a real handling consideration for an open-world search tool. It does not cover result limits or pagination termination, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the untrusted-data warning placed before the pagination note. Efficient overall, though the 'Page numbers start at one' sentence is largely redundant with the schema and displaces more useful parameter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 4-parameter search with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the required 'year' filter and the meaning of 'query'/'pageSize' unexplained, which an agent needs in order to call 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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: the required 'year' is never mentioned, and 'query' and 'pageSize' are undocumented. The only parameter remark, 'Page numbers start at one,' merely restates the schema's minimum of 1 for 'page'.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search published materials') and scopes it to the configured own-account SAS session, which separates it from the broader catalog siblings. It stops short of naming how it differs from sas_get_material or sas_get_personalized_availability, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'own-account SAS session' phrasing implies this is the search path for the caller's credentialed session, and 'published materials' hints at the catalog scope. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus sas_get_material (single fetch) or sas_get_personalized_availability, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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