audible_product_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is credential-free public catalog data from api.audible.com and that a relation type is required. However, it does not mention response structure, pagination, or behavior for invalid ASINs/relation types, which matters given no output schema is available.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and relation types. There is mild redundancy between 'related to an audiobook' and 'related to a given ASIN', but overall every sentence serves a purpose and no filler is present beyond that repetition.

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?

The description covers required inputs (asin, similarity_type), lists accepted relation types, and notes the credential-free public data source. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not describe the return format or edge-case behavior, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

The schema's similarity_type description is generic ('How to relate titles to the given ASIN'), while the description adds concrete allowed values: same series, same narrator, same author, next in series, or raw upstream similarity. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Audible titles related to an audiobook'), then enumerates the specific relation types that define the tool's scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audible_product (single product) and audible_search (search across Audible).

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need related titles for a given ASIN, with the exact accepted relation types listed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the precise relation-type enumeration leaves little ambiguity.

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