İTÜ Library Item

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world traits. The description adds genuinely new information beyond those: 'Copy status loaded asynchronously may be unknown,' warning the agent that a field may be absent. That async caveat is real added value, though nothing more is disclosed about rate limits or auth.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the core action and ID source are front-loaded, and the async caveat is appended where it belongs.

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 values need not be explained. For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, ID provenance, and the async caveat adequately, though it doesn't clarify the relationship to library_check_availability.

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 carry the parameter burden. It does meaningfully explain the single record_id: its format ('SD_ILS:') and provenance (returned by library_search), which the bare schema does not convey.

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+resource ('Read a public Sirsi record and copy list') and names the ID source (library_search), so an agent knows it retrieves item details. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby library_check_availability sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

'using the SD_ILS: ID returned by library_search' gives a clear prerequisite and workflow context (call this after search). No explicit when-not or alternative routing is stated, so it lacks the exclusions that would earn a 5.

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