QUERY_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and says nothing about behavior. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the query costs money/is rate-limited, what auth is required, or what a result looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriate for a two-parameter tool. It is short but not padded or repetitive.

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 simple two-parameter read-style tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any behavioral or usage context leaves it only minimally complete.

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%, with both query and library_id documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning (no format, syntax, or example of a natural-language query) beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb (実行します) and resource (指定されたドキュメントライブラリ) with a clear scope (natural-language query). It is distinguishable from the LIST_* siblings, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET sibling, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over LIST_DOCUMENT_LIBRARY or QUERY_DOCUMENT_SET, nor any prerequisite or exclusion information. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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