list_library_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as response behavior, pagination, authentication, or rate limits. It is not contradictory, but it offers no additional transparency value.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, the endpoint path, and a clean parameter list. Every line carries content, and the most critical information (name and endpoint) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it omits some necessary details.

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 5-parameter search tool with zero schema-level descriptions creations, the description is insufficient for confident invocation. There are no examples, no value constraints for string parameters, no clarification of optionality, and no mention of what 'Discover' means. The presence of an output schema helps but does not resolve input ambiguity.

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's one-line parameter explanations provide the only semantics for the 5 parameters. However, these explanations are minimal and do not specify accepted values or formats, especially for search_types and search_providers, leaving significant ambiguity. It compensates slightly but not fully.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Discover'), but 'Discover' is undefined jargon and does not distinguish the tool from sibling search tools like get_library_sections_by_section_id_search or list_hubs_search. The endpoint path adds specificity, but the purpose remains ambiguous about what 'Discover' actually covers.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. There are several search-related siblings, but the description does not mention them, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would have to guess which search tool fits its goal.

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