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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including the no-filter default behavior and the substring/combination search semantics. It does not describe every edge case, but with annotations present, the bar is lower and the added behavior is meaningful.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose and key default behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It does not repeat schema details or annotations.

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?

For a simple, read-only search tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers what an agent needs: what it searches, how filters work, and what happens with no filters. No critical decision-making information is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between parameters: title/author substring maps to query, classifier tag maps to tag, and 'and/or' indicates combinability. This is useful semantic context beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Search or list') and a specific resource ('the parenting-focused book library') with clear filter dimensions. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_library_work or get_magazine_piece, which are retrieval-oriented.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for searching or listing the library by title/author and/or tag, and that omitting filters returns the first page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over the sibling get/list tools.

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