search_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'indexed PDF and Markdown evidence.' It adds the context that only indexed files are searched and scopes the file types, but it does not explain ranking, snippet behavior, or any effects on state.

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, very short sentence with no filler words, so it is concise. However, it is arguably too short for a tool with three parameters and a potentially ambiguous search behavior, making it under-specified rather than appropriately complete.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an inadequate parameter description, the description fails to explain essential invocation details such as how to form queries, what the returned evidence looks like, or how 'limit' and 'citekey' affect results. For a simple search tool, the minimal context is insufficient.

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%, and the description provides no information about 'query', 'limit', or 'citekey'. The agent is left to guess what each parameter means and which are required beyond the schema's structural hints.

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 performs a search over indexed PDF and Markdown content, giving the agent a specific verb and resource. Though it does not name sibling tools, the 'search' operation is distinct from the get_* retrieval tools and find_evidence appears to be a broader alternative.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_evidence or get_document. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about what makes this the right choice.

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