Find newspapers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields, but those are also available via the output schema, and it says nothing about result ordering or how multiple filters combine. It adds modest value beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence carries a genuinely useful cross-tool handoff. No filler.

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, complete annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description only needs to supply purpose and routing — both present. The minor gap is not explaining how name/state/city filters combine, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

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 100% and all five parameters (city, name, state, page, per_page) are documented with examples and bounds in the schema. The description names the same three filter dimensions but adds no syntax or combination semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Find newspapers in the archive') plus the three filter dimensions (name, state, city). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_newspapers by positioning itself as the metadata lookup that yields the LCCN needed for content search.

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?

The description explicitly routes the agent onward: the returned LCCN is to be used as newspaper_lccn in search_newspapers to narrow to a single paper. That is clear workflow context, though it does not state exclusions (e.g. when to skip this step and search directly).

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