na_search

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: invalid search-field values silently return the entire 13,097,591-record catalog, dbname mismatches fail with ERR04, and the API caps retrieval at 99,000 records via pageno 99 and page_size 1000. It also explains cap_hit and truncated semantics.

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?

Although long, the description is densely informative and well-structured: purpose first, then search syntax, field whitelist, dbname behavior, option syntax, paging, and limits. Warnings and examples are placed exactly where confusion would occur, and no sentence is 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?

The description covers nearly every operational constraint needed to invoke this complex tool correctly, including validation behavior, pagination limits, and response flags. It falls slightly short by not describing extra_params and not summarizing the general result shape, especially since there is no output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, this description fully compensates for search, dbname, option, page_size, and max_records, including required formats, allowed values, defaults, and failure modes. The only gap is extra_params, which appears in the schema but is never explained in the description.

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 first sentence names a specific action and resource: searching the National Assembly Library catalog DB for books, theses, and articles. It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly routing OR needs to na_collect and field-vocabulary checks to na_fields.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use na_collect when OR semantics are needed, use na_fields to confirm valid field names for detailed search, and use dbname to switch to detailed search. It also explains what happens if the documented format is not followed.

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