Search Library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the searchable fields and the return payload, which is sufficient for a safe read-only search operation. It does not mention pagination behavior, error handling, or whether the search is full-text vs exact-field, but for a non-destructive search tool these are moderate gaps.

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?

One sentence packs the action, scope, search fields, and return value with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could add a sentence about pagination semantics or explicitly point to search_catalog, but nothing essential is missing for the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define what can be searched (title, authors, abstract, notes), adding meaning to the query parameter, but it does not explain the limit parameter or its effect. The limit parameter is largely self-explanatory and has a default, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a clear scope ('authenticated Mendeley library'), and the relevant fields (title, authors, abstract, notes). It also states what is returned (concise document metadata, citation text, PDF availability), and this scope separates it from sibling search_catalog, which targets the broader catalog.

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 phrase 'authenticated Mendeley library' clearly situates this as the user's library search, as opposed to the catalog-level search. It does not explicitly name search_catalog or enumerate when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to make the basic routing decision.

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