Search z-library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does well: it says the result is a trimmed list, enumerates the fields each entry carries, and instructs not to download without user selection, implying a safe read-only search step. It does not mention pagination totals, error behavior, or auth requirements, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 two sentences with no waste: the first states the core action, the second adds the output shape and the required user-interaction step. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 8 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what the return entries contain and how they feed downstream tools. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though a note on pagination/total result behavior would make it fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter clearly. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the output relationship, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Search z-library for books') and the resource ('z-library'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining it returns a candidate list with the id/hash that zlib_get_download_url and zlib_download require. This makes the tool's role in the download workflow immediately clear.

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 tells the agent to present candidates to the user and let them pick before downloading anything, which defines when this tool should be used relative to the download siblings. It also names the downstream tools that consume its output, giving clear workflow placement.

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