search_titles

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint) and open-world scope, yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: editions are merged by title/first author/format and ranked by best position across libraries, and availability is reported per library. It stops short of describing pagination or how limits interact across multiple libraries.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the result-shaping behavior second. Minor waste in the line-broken formatting, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present and near-complete parameter descriptions, the description only needs to explain the search model and result merging, which it does. A note on multi-library result grouping or limits per library would round it out.

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 89%, so parameters are largely documented in the schema itself (sort semantics, 'Results per library', 'Omit to browse', subject ids source). The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies; the undocumented media_type remains unaddressed in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search' titles) and adds real scope detail: one or several libraries, with availability per library. It never names the sibling it differs from (e.g. get_title for a single known title vs get_availability), so it falls short of 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Search one library or several at once' suggests a discovery context, and the schema note 'Omit to browse' hints at browsing mode, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-get_title/get_availability guidance.

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