swisscovery_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context about the SRU protocol, return formats (markdown/json), and pagination details, but does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with a clear front-loaded statement, followed by examples and parameter details. It is appropriately sized for the tool complexity, though the examples could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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 detailed input schema, comprehensive annotations (including readOnlyHint), and an output schema described in the Returns section, the description covers all necessary context for selecting and invoking the tool correctly. Pagination is explained, and the output format is specified.

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 input schema already has detailed descriptions and examples for each parameter. The tool description's parameter section adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool searches the swisscovery union catalog via SRU, and lists supported field-specific searches. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swisscovery_get_record by focusing on search capabilities.

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?

It provides numerous examples of CQL queries and mentions pagination, giving good usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives for different scenarios.

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