get_libraries_by_id_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context—it doesn't explain what the search operation does, whether it returns partial results, or any side effects. It merely repeats the endpoint, offering no additional transparency beyond the annotations.

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 short but not effectively structured. It front-loads a vague phrase and then lists the endpoint and args, but the information is not organized in a way that helps an agent. It is under-specified rather than concise, as it omits essential context that should be present.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description is still incomplete for a search endpoint. It doesn't mention any query parameters (if any), what the search operates on, or the expected result format. Given the complexity of a search operation, this is insufficient.

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 only states 'id: Path parameter', which adds minimal meaning—it doesn't explain that id refers to a library ID, what format it expects, or any constraints. The schema already provides type and required flags, so the description adds little semantic value.

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 says 'Get libraries search' which is ambiguous—it doesn't clarify what is being searched (items, authors, etc.) or what the result contains. It essentially restates the tool name and adds the endpoint, but fails to distinguish it from siblings like get_libraries_by_id_items or get_libraries_by_id_authors. No specific verb+resource clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other library-related endpoints. No mention of prerequisites, alternative tools, or conditions. The description provides zero context for selection among the many similar get_libraries_by_id_* siblings.

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