search_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the result ordering ('newest first'), the exact returned fields ('id, title, url, date, tags'), and that matching spans title plus full page content. It omits safety/permission context and says nothing about truncation or how limit interacts with result counts.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the search scope before the redirect to get_library_items. No filler, no repetition of schema defaults.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and sort order, which is what an agent most needs. It leaves one gap: with zero required parameters, it never says what an unfiltered call returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (tag, limit, query, since) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'and/or' combinability and the content-vs-title match scope, which is marginal value on top of a fully annotated 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 ('Search your Web2MD library (saved conversions)') plus the matching scope ('keyword ... and/or tag, newest first'), which is enough to tell it apart from semantic_search and get_library_items without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent onward: 'Use get_library_items to fetch full markdown', making clear this tool returns metadata only. It stops short of contrasting with semantic_search, so the choice between keyword and semantic retrieval is left implicit.

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