library_consult

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description extends this by adding 'without changing the reading desk' and revealing the hybrid ranking mechanism. It still omits return/pagination behavior, but with strong annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the search action and resource, then compact behavioral details. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The core purpose and safety profile are clear, but with five parameters, a nested catalog_filters object, and no output schema, important operational details such as result format, ranking thresholds, and filter semantics are left to inference. The description is adequate for basic selection yet incomplete for confident invocation.

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?

Only collection and catalog_filters have schema descriptions; subject, max_books, and minimum_relevance are undocumented. The description's ranking phrase only loosely hints at relevance but does not explain thresholds, limits, or query formats, so it fails to compensate for the 40% schema coverage.

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 the specific action 'Search the off-desk Library' and names the ranking behavior (hybrid vector, lexical, importance, recency), making the tool's function unmistakable. The phrase 'without changing the reading desk' distinguishes it from desk/context siblings such as library_desk_get and library_context_*. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 conveys a clear read-only search context and explicitly notes no desk state change, which helps select this tool over mutation-style siblings. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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