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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool combines full-text and semantic search and that results are relevance-sorted, which goes beyond what the schema alone reveals. It does not describe return structure or edge cases, but for a read-only search tool the key behavior is well disclosed.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the details about query types and search behavior each earn their place.

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 search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand what it searches, how it ranks, and what inputs are acceptable. It could be slightly richer by mentioning that exact lookup by identifier might be better served by get_book, but it is otherwise complete.

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 all five parameters. The description adds context about natural-language queries and relevance ranking, but it does not add material parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: searching books in the Dutch book catalog. It also clarifies supported query types (keywords, title, author, ISBN, natural language), which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_book or list_new_releases.

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 states what kinds of queries this tool accepts and that it is a general-purpose search over the catalog. It does not explicitly say when to use get_book or list_new_releases instead, but the context strongly implies this is the tool for broad or natural-language searches.

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