search_books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions return of 'details and reading progress' but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, auth needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though structure could be improved with bullet points or separate outcome statements.

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 four parameters, siblings, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the meaning of 'details and reading progress', handling of no results, or pagination, which would be helpful given the missing output schema.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only tying keyword and include_details to the search output. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (search), resource (books in bookshelf), and output (matching books with details and reading progress). It distinguishes from siblings which focus on reviews, notes, or the entire bookshelf.

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 for keyword-based search but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings like get_book_best_reviews or get_bookshelf. No when-not-to-use or alternative selection advice.

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