search_loc

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

With no annotations, the description provides good transparency about search behavior, query limitations (stripping of boolean operators), and result format (individual pages with reference). It does not disclose rate limits or authentication but these are common for search APIs.

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 moderately concise with each sentence providing distinct information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and organized logically, though a bit lengthy. Could be tightened without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's scope, query behavior, and result usage with siblings, leaving some aspects like error handling unaddressed but adequate for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by detailing query syntax (ANDing, exact phrases, ignored operators) and clarifying the page parameter's role and 1-indexing.

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 it searches the Library of Congress full text, covering multiple collections and time periods. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining how results connect to snippets_loc and get_loc_text.

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?

The description explains query syntax (AND, quoted phrases, no boolean operators) and result structure, effectively guiding when and how to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance and could mention alternative tools for boolean searches.

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