search_cdisc_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (hits, totalHits, hasMore) and the default/max limit, but it does not explain pagination semantics, expectations for custom headers_, error handling, or what happens if the limit is exceeded. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary followed by clearly separated Args, Returns, and Example sections. There is no redundant filler or repeated schema information, and every section contributes operational value.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description defines the return contract (hits, totalHits, hasMore) and documents the important limit constraint. The only gaps are minor: how to interpret hasMore for further paging and what format custom headers_ should take. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke the tool 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?

The schema provides 0% parameter descriptions, but the Args section compensates by explaining query, limit (default: 100, max: 500), and optional headers_, and includes concrete usage examples. The query and headers_ descriptions are still thin, so it does not fully maximize semantic clarity, but it goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opening sentence 'Search across all CDISC Library content (variables, domains, codelists, BC, etc.)' clearly describes a specific action and broad resource. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_* tools that retrieve specific packages or domains, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 a general-purpose search tool through the phrase 'Search across all CDISC Library content' and the examples, but it never directly states when to use this tool versus a specific sibling getter. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the intended scope.

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