find_subject_librarians

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context that only public profiles are returned and that contact details are self-disclosed, which helps the agent set expectations, but it says nothing about result counts, pagination, or auth needs.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return contents following. No filler, no repetition of the tool name beyond what is needed.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and input format adequately. Its description of return fields is mildly redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 0% for the single 'subject' parameter, so the description must compensate — and it does, clarifying that subject accepts a 'name or id'. That is the key ambiguity an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 librarians') with a scoping qualifier ('with a public profile for a subject'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_subjects or search_guides, though it does not name a sibling or contrast with one.

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 'for a subject' framing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (list_subjects, search_guides) that could confuse an agent.

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