search_libraries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful semantics (full-text vs. substring matching, limit/offset defaults, two-letter state format) and clarifies that it searches systems, not outlets. However, it does not describe the return format or how multiple filters are combined.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, immediately defines the key term 'system', and uses an organized Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff.

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's moderate complexity (5 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the core semantics and constraints well, including the 'at least one' requirement. It omits the response structure and filter combination behavior, but overall is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name (full-text search), state (two-letter code), city (substring match), limit (1-100, default 20), offset (default 0). This is rich, exact information 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 'searches public library systems' with specific filters (name, state, city). The definition of a system vs. branch distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_outlet', and the scope is specific and action-oriented.

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?

Provides a clear usage constraint ('Provide at least one of name, state, or city'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over siblings like 'find_libraries_near_address' or 'find_libraries_near_coordinates'. Alternative selection is implied but not stated.

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