trove_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Search', but does not mention required authentication (api_key parameter), rate limits, response format, or mutation side effects. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 very short (7 words) and front-loaded. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It earns a 4 for lack of fluff, but not a 5 because it omits crucial information.

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 4 parameters (including an undocumented api_key), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand inputs, outputs, or usage constraints.

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 50% (zone and n have descriptions, query and api_key do not). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. It fails to explain the query format or how to obtain an API key, which are critical for proper use.

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 'Search the National Library of Australia's Trove' clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Trove'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like trove_get_work or trove_newspaper_article, but it is distinct in being a general search rather than specific retrieval.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like trove_get_work or trove_newspaper_article. The description is generic and does not specify usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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