İTÜ Library Availability

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral depth beyond them: it warns that available=null signals an asynchronous status lookup, a non-obvious result state an agent must handle. It does not cover rate limits or auth requirements, but for a read-only query this is solid.

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 no filler, and the core purpose leads. 'Read public copy status' is arguably too terse to parse without the title, which is the only minor structural weakness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the tool is incomplete on two agent-critical points: where record_id comes from and which sibling tool to use for discovery beforehand.

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?

The single parameter record_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden -- yet it says nothing about what a record ID is, its format, or that it originates from library_search. With low coverage and one undocumented parameter, this is a clear gap.

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: reading the copy/availability status of a catalog record. An agent can distinguish it from library_get_item (item details) and library_search (discovery) by inference, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts scope.

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 call this versus library_get_item, library_list_loans, or library_reserve_item, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that record_id must first come from library_search). The line about verifying in the official catalog is a caveat on results, not a when-to-use directive.

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