list_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral weight; it discloses that results are account-scoped and include vendor plus an AI data-return policy flag, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about pagination, whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'list'), or rate/auth constraints.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the resource, scope, return fields, and the filter in minimal words. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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-value structure is documented elsewhere, and the description still summarizes the notable return fields. The only gap is lack of routing guidance among the six sibling catalog/query tools, which is minor for a simple enumerate operation.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'contains' parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description rescues it by explaining it as an optional substring filter. That adds the matching semantics ('substring', 'optional') the schema lacks, though no case-sensitivity or field-matched details are given.

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 (list WRDS libraries) plus scope (those this account can access) and the fields returned (vendor, AI data-return policy). It is distinguishable from list_tables/describe_table by resource, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative is given. The mention of an optional substring filter hints at usage but does not explain when to prefer this over search_catalog or when to enumerate libraries before calling list_tables.

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