search_library_advisor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that the tool will find the correct repository and suggest a workflow with appropriate topics, and gives a concrete example. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if there are side effects, but the described behavior strongly implies a safe advisory action.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, gives the usage condition, then provides an illustrative example. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and an example of expected output. It could mention error handling or what happens if no library is found, but that is not essential for a search/guidance 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('Remotion' → 'remotion-dev/remotion', topics 'captions' or 'srt'), clarifying how the query and optional topic parameters interact and what kinds of values are useful.

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 the specific verb 'search' and clearly identifies the resource as libraries, with the added purpose of providing guidance on the correct Context7 workflow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that initialize, set up, add, or read contexts.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this when you're unsure about exact library names or when users mention features/topics.' This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools.

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