search_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns one entry per (lib_id, version) pair and advises grouping by lib_id on the client. It also describes the behavior for empty input. No contradictions or omissions noted.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has only two parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: main use, special case, output format, and relationship to sibling tool.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters, the description adds important context: the meaning of an empty name and the output structure (one entry per pair, need to group). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 uses the verb 'Resolve' and specifies the resource ('free-text library name'). It clearly states the output: a ranked list of (lib_id, version) candidates that can be passed to search_docs. It also distinguishes from sibling 'search_docs' by indicating the output is intended for it, and clarifies behavior for empty input.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to resolve a library name into candidates for search_docs. It also explains the special case of passing an empty name to list most-indexed libraries. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the purpose and boundary are clear enough.

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