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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world status, and the description adds genuinely new operational facts: it costs 1 credit per record with a 2-credit minimum, and the catalog is partial. These cost and coverage disclosures materially affect how an agent should invoke it.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the coverage caveat, cost model, and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and it still summarizes them. Cost, coverage limits, and the sibling routing are all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by tying cost to page_size ('keep `page_size` to what you need'), which the schema alone does not convey.

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 (Search) and resource (the Goodreads authors dataset) and enumerates the returned fields (bio, birth/death dates, website, genres, aggregate rating). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling datasets_goodreads_authors_item by naming the item tool for single-author reads.

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?

It routes the agent to datasets_goodreads_authors_item for reading one author by id, and warns that coverage is incomplete because authors are a byproduct of the books crawl. That is clear usage context, though there is no explicit 'when not to use this search' guidance.

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