Browse open textbooks by subject

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses result ordering (OpenStax first) and graceful degradation when DOAB is unavailable, including that the response signals the partial result. That is meaningful operational context not present in structured fields, though rate limits or result-shape details are absent.

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 four short sentences and front-loads what the tool returns before covering inputs and failure behavior. The trailing example prompt is slightly redundant but does usefully illustrate the intended subject granularity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained. The description still covers the multi-source merge, ordering, and the DOAB-outage case, which is what an agent needs to set expectations; only sibling routing is left unaddressed.

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%, so both the subject examples and the 1-to-25 limit range are already documented in the input schema. The description restates them rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Browse free textbooks for a course topic') and names the two sources it aggregates, OpenStax and DOAB. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like find_free_textbook, but the browse-by-subject scope is distinct enough that an agent can infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied through the example prompt ('List free textbooks for intro statistics'), which suggests a broad topical query. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_free_textbook or find_older_edition, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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