search_wol_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action and output, omitting behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. The superficial description adds minimal transparency.

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 a single sentence, achieving conciseness and front-loading the essential purpose. It could benefit from slight restructuring to include more context, but it is not verbose.

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 complexity of having 20 sibling tools and 5 parameters with low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not help the agent distinguish this search from other specific search tools, nor does it explain output format or limits.

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 40% (only language and langwritten have descriptions). The description does not clarify the remaining parameters (limit, query, format) beyond their names. It adds no semantic value to compensate for the low coverage.

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 Watchtower Online Library and returns results with excerpts and URLs. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_wol_media or search_bible_books, which also search the same library but for different content types.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. There is no mention of preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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