library_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about result behavior beyond listing fields, nor about limits, permissions, or pagination. It does hint that availability is a returned attribute, which is useful context, but that is the only disclosure.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the searchable-field list gives basic orientation. However, for a query-driven search tool with an undocumented limit parameter and no usage guidance, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 must compensate, but it only implies that the query string may match title/author/publication/call number/location/availability. It never states whether matching is keyword, substring, or exact, and says nothing about the 'limit' parameter's meaning or bounds.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('중앙도서관 소장 자료 검색') and enumerates the searchable fields (title, author, publication, call number, location, availability), so an agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like library_hours, but the holdings-search scope is distinct enough from the names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. library_hours, site_search) and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb '검색'.

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