Search İTÜ Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: pagination is driven by reusing next_offset, and no credentials are needed. That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then pagination, then prerequisites. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 described, and the auth/network and pagination notes cover the operational essentials. The gap is parameter-level: search_type semantics and query syntax are undocumented in both schema and description, which is a real risk for correct invocation.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. It references next_offset (an output-side pagination token) but never explains query, limit, offset, or the valid values of search_type — which has no enum and no description, leaving 'keyword' as the only discoverable value.

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: 'Search the current public İTÜ Sirsi catalog.' The scope word 'public' and the named catalog make it clear this is a catalog lookup rather than an account action. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like library_get_item or library_check_availability, which an agent must infer.

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 gives real usage context — 'Public network access is required; no Ninova credentials are used' — which tells the agent this works without authentication, unlike the obs_*/Ninova tools. But it never states when to prefer this over library_get_item or library_check_availability, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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