search_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that fulltext/notes rely on a separately built index rather than live queries, that results include index_last_updated, and that the agent must surface that timestamp to users. This exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary operational context. It front-loads the core purpose, then structures scope, library scoping, result shape, and the index freshness caveat in a logical order.

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 no output schema, the description still conveys what results contain, how to fetch more details, when to expect live versus indexed data, and what to tell the user about freshness. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its output.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains scope values and library_id behavior, and it implies query semantics through the overall search purpose. It does not elaborate on limit, but the schema title and default make it self-explanatory.

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 and resource: 'Search across the whole library', and clarifies the operation by enumerating the four scope modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering metadata, fulltext, notes, and all-library scope rather than a simple metadata or item listing.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool: use it for cross-library search, pass library_id to narrow to one library, and use rebuild_search_index when fulltext/notes are unavailable. It does not explicitly say 'use search_metadata instead for metadata-only queries', but it does explain the metadata scope and points to related tools for fetching results.

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