search_collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the read-only, open-world profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: duplicate WorldCat/finding-aid records flagged via possible_duplicate_of, the 2010s SNAC snapshot caveat, and the warning that a hit locates papers but does not describe their contents. Since annotations carry the safety profile and the description's extras are caveats rather than behavioral mechanics like caching or pagination, a 3 fits.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then caveats, with no filler sentences. Slight redundancy where 'Matches the collection TITLE only' restates part of the title_words schema description, but each block carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey result semantics, and it does: it names the possible_duplicate_of field, explains that provenance/citation should come from the repository, and warns about catalogue staleness. Nothing needed to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a nuance the schema only partially covers: a place or second surname appearing in an abstract rather than the title will not match, which sharpens the title_words contract. The page, count, and refresh parameters are left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find archival collections') plus what a result includes ('with who holds each'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_names and archivegrid_search_link as the tools for names/places that won't match a title search.

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?

Explicitly says what matches (TITLE only, all words must appear) and what does not, then routes the agent to archivegrid_search_link or search_names for those cases. It adds a concrete condition for retrying (refresh a cached empty result before concluding absence).

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