Return SageChimp catalog context and unpaid-vs-ARC verdict. Always includes catalog facts, series, comparable titles, and any unpaid reviews. A formal verdict requires 5 unpaid reviews; below that, hasEnoughData is false and the sample is still returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | SageChimp book slug, e.g. dungeon-crawler-carl | |
| query | No | Title/author/ISBN if slug is unknown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral rule (verdict requires 5 unpaid reviews; below that hasEnoughData is false and the sample is still returned), which is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or what a formal verdict looks like, so it's not fully exhaustive.
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 tight sentences: the core return, the invariant contents, and the verdict rule. Everything is front-loaded. Slightly terse on the interaction between slug and query, but no wasted text.
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 2-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the critical verdict threshold and fallback behavior. It omits output structure details (what 'verdict' looks like) but for a read tool that's a minor gap and the behavioral rule is the most important omission to have filled.
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%, documenting both slug and query with examples, and the description adds no parameter syntax beyond that. The description does specify the output semantics (hasEnoughData) but not the relationship between the two params' fallback behavior, so it lands at the 3 baseline.
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 precise verb (Return), the exact resource (SageChimp catalog context and unpaid-vs-ARC verdict), and enumerates the payload (catalog facts, series, comparable titles, unpaid reviews). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings get_book_reviews (reviews only) and search_books (discovery).
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 implies when to use it: when a catalog-plus-verdict view is needed, with a concrete threshold (5 unpaid reviews) that tells the agent what 'enough data' means. It doesn't explicitly name when to prefer get_book_reviews or search_books, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.