uooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information ('Get biography and key info'), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary details (the parameter and an example) without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter usage, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions. For a read-only tool with no annotations, more context would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'author_key' fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the parameter's purpose and providing an example ('e.g., OL23919A'), but it does not offer additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get biography and key info') and the resource ('for an author'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_book' and 'search_books'. It explicitly mentions the required identifier ('Open Library author key'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 usage by specifying the required parameter ('using their Open Library author key'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_book' or 'search_books'. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get full details') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ISBN), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning the highest score for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output expectations, which are necessary for effective agent operation despite the simple context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'isbn' fully documented in the schema as 'ISBN-10 or ISBN-13'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage without extra 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a book'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_books' (which might return multiple results) or 'get_author' (which targets a different resource), so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_books' or 'get_author'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return fields (title, author, year, ISBN, cover image URL), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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?

The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return values. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (search functionality with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, but misses details on behavioral aspects like result ordering, pagination, or error cases. Without an output schema, the description should ideally explain the return structure more thoroughly, but it does list key fields, providing a minimal foundation.

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?

The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It mentions search criteria ('by title, author, or keyword') that aligns with the 'query' parameter's schema description, but doesn't provide additional context like search syntax or ranking. Since the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, the description meets the baseline without compensating for any gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Search for books') and resources ('books'), and specifies search criteria ('by title, author, or keyword'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_author' and 'get_book' by focusing on search functionality rather than direct retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond implying different use cases.

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 usage context through the search criteria, suggesting it's for finding books based on textual queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_book' (which might retrieve a specific book by ID) or 'get_author'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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