book.search

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it searches book metadata and returns specific fields. It does not disclose rate limits or authentication requirements, but for a read-only search this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 succinct sentences with no extraneous information. First sentence states purpose, second explains query modes, third lists returns. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all intended behaviors, query modes, and return fields. It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional inference.

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 only 17% (only isbn described), but description adds meaning for q, title, author, and isbn parameters by explaining their usage (free-text, individual lookups). Page and limit are not described but have defaults and ranges in schema. Overall, description compensates well for low 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?

Description explicitly states it is an Open Library book metadata search, lists specific query modes (free-text, title, author, ISBN), and enumerates return fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated to book search.

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?

Describes three distinct lookup patterns: free-text query, individual title/author, or ISBN. Provides clear context for when to use each parameter, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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