search_library

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

No annotations are given, so the description must convey behavior. It states 'full-text search', implying reading only, but does not mention pagination, sorting, or performance characteristics. It is adequate for a simple search tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly improved by separating the action from scope, but it is efficiently written with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, but the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., list of papers, metadata). Given the sibling tools, more context about output would help.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds detail for the query parameter ('searches title, abstract, authors, notes'), which goes beyond the schema's description. The limit parameter is self-explanatory.

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 performs full-text search on the local library. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_papers or search_semantic_scholar, which may also search papers. The scope 'local library' provides some distinction.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_semantic_scholar or search_papers. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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