Search a library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation (search). The description adds that it performs full-text search across multiple entity types, but it does not disclose further behavioral traits like result ranking, pagination behavior, or performance considerations. With good annotation coverage, the bar is lower; a 3 is appropriate as the description adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the guidance for alternatives is in a separate sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete about return value structure (e.g., result format, pagination). However, it does specify the types of entities matched (books, podcasts, etc.), which gives useful expectations. Parameters like limit imply pagination. For a search tool in a well-defined library context, this is nearly complete; a 4 is fair.

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 does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like q, limit, and detail. It only reinforces that the search is within 'one library,' which aligns with library_id. There is no extra semantic guidance for parameters.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'library', and what is searched ('matches books, podcasts, series, authors, narrators and tags'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_library_items by providing a usage contrast, making the purpose crystal clear.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('do I own X?' questions) and when to use an alternative ('show me all X' questions → list_library_items with filter). This provides direct decision guidance for the agent.

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