query_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal return format, whether it's a read-only operation (though 'query' implies read), pagination, or how the has_lyrics filter behaves for null values. Since an output schema exists, some return info is covered, but behavioral traits are otherwise undisclosed.

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 a single short sentence, which is efficient and free of waste. It is appropriately brief, though slightly under-specified. No unnecessary content or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but does have an output schema which reduces some explanatory burden. However, the description is minimal and does not explain filter behavior, defaults, or how results are sorted/ordered. For a query tool with siblings offering similar functionality, more context is needed to disambiguate tool choice.

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%, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions keyword and has_lyrics filters (matching two of the three parameters), but does not explain the meaning, range, or behavior of 'limit' or the exact filter semantics. Given 0% coverage, the description must compensate but only partially covers two parameters.

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 states it queries the local library with keyword and lyrics filters. The verb 'query' plus 'local library' defines a clear purpose, but it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_songs' which likely overlaps in functionality. The scope is somewhat clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search_songs'. It does not specify exclusions or alternative tools. The description gives context that it targets the local library, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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