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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent search. Beyond that, the description adds meaningful behavior: 20 results per page, best-match ordering, matching passage per result, and Latin transliteration support.

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 are front-loaded with scope and search behavior, followed by return characteristics. There is no filler.

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 output schema, the description usefully explains result count, ordering, and included matching passages. It is largely complete for a simple search tool, though pagination termination details such as total pages are not stated.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds useful meaning by noting that queries work in any language or script and that transliteration is accepted, plus it implies page-size behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it searches books across titles, authors, descriptions and full text. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_authors despite indexing author names.

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?

Usage is implied by the search-oriented description, but it never says when to use this instead of list_books, get_book, or search_authors. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool names and the word 'search'.

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