Search BHL Full Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying that the tool scans OCR-transcribed content and returns matching publications with title, authors, publisher, date, and direct BHL URLs. These details go beyond annotations, clarifying the nature of the search results. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but annotations cover the core behavioral traits, so a 4 is warranted.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: (1) states the core function, (2) contrasts with catalog search and explains the benefit, (3) lists return characteristics and directs to the alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has zero fluff. 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?

For a search tool with a separate output schema (indicated as having one), the description covers the necessary context: what it searches, why it differs from other search tools, what it returns, and when to prefer an alternative. It also includes pagination parameters in the schema. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it 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% — all three parameters (query, page, limit) have descriptive schema entries. The description itself does not add further parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description neither elevates nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 tool's function: 'Search within the digitized full text of Biodiversity Heritage Library publications for a specific term or phrase.' It distinguishes itself from the catalog search by explicitly contrasting full-text vs metadata search, and names the key differentiator (OCR content). This makes its purpose precise and distinct from siblings like bhl.literature.search and bhl.literature.by_subject.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains that full-text search is appropriate for finding mentions that don't appear in metadata, and then gives a concrete alternative: 'Use bhl.literature.search for faster metadata-only catalog queries.' This dichotomous instruction clearly routes the agent to the correct sibling, leaving no ambiguity.

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