get_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. It discloses a read-only 'Get' operation and lists returned data categories, but does not mention error behavior, prerequisites, or limitations. It adds some context but is not exhaustive.

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-sentence description plus a one-line parameter doc. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundant text. The example is concise and useful.

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?

One-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description lists the five data categories returned (collections, staffing, visits, programs, finances), which is good context, but doesn't specify response format or error cases. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 only type 'string' for fscs_id with 0% description coverage. The description's Args section explains it is an IMLS FSCS ID and provides an example ('IL0021'), adding essential semantic value that the schema lacks.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves a full profile for a library system by FSCS ID, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'library system'. Lists included data categories (collections, staffing, visits, programs, finances), distinguishing it from siblings like get_state_summary and get_outlet.

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?

Implies usage when you have an FSCS ID, and lists what the profile includes, but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions. This is clear context for a direct get-by-ID tool, though explicit comparisons to search_libraries or find_* tools would strengthen it.

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