search_library_papers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the return list includes title/abstract and source, and by mentioning indexed-conference coverage. It could disclose pagination limits or result-count behavior, but the key traits are covered.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a coverage caveat, return summary, and a structured Args list. It is slightly padded by 'Indexed conferences: none,' but the sentence is informative and not redundant.

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 search tool without an output schema, the description explains the return shape, source inclusion, display modes, ordering, and pagination. It is not fully complete because page size and precise matching behavior (e.g., metadata vs full-text) are unspecified, but the main workflow is clear.

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 has zero descriptions, so the Args section carries the full explanatory burden and does so thoroughly: each parameter is named, with defaults, allowed values, and the page/start_from mutual-exclusivity constraint.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search the local paper database by keywords.' It clarifies the local scope, distinguishing it from sibling search_arxiv_papers, and the return of paper lists with abstracts differentiates it from grep_paper_content/get_paper_toc.

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 implies this is for searching the local paper database, and 'Indexed conferences: none' provides a context cue, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools or gives exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named.

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