bib:search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the searched fields and the single-term constraint, but it does not state the result shape, ordering, or whether this is a read-only operation; case-insensitivity is only present in the schema, not the description.

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 compact sentences front-load the core action and scope before the usage constraint. The example search terms are useful and not filler, making this a tightly written description.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the highly covered parameter schema is enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. A brief note about what the search returns would be helpful, but it is not required for successful invocation.

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 100%, so file, query, and limit are already well documented. The description reinforces the one-query-per-call rule and provides examples, but adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search bibliography entries across all fields', and lists the searched fields, which clearly conveys the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like bib:list or bib:get, but 'search' plus the field list makes the scope unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: one search term per call, with concrete examples and the instruction to make multiple calls for multiple lookups. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings such as bib:get or bib:list, but the term-level guidance is clear.

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