audible_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses that this is 'credential-free public catalog data from api.audible.com' (no auth setup needed) and describes the return shape including ordering. It does not cover edge cases like behavior on an invalid ASIN or a non-series ASIN, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return behavior, parameter provenance, and credential status. The most important action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and no words are wasted. This is appropriately compact for a single-parameter lookup tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential ground: what it does, what it returns, how to find the input, and authentication status. An agent can call this correctly with the information given. A brief note on error behavior for non-series ASINs would be the only meaningful addition.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining the semantics of the series ASIN — that it is distinct from book ASINs and how to source it from a product's series[].asin field — reinforcing and extending the schema's one-line parameter description. This pushes it above baseline to a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get an Audible series' ordered book list' and clarifies the return value ('Returns an Audible series and every book in it, in series order'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the series-level scope and ordering, and the note that a series ASIN is distinct from any book ASIN implicitly separates it from book/product-level tools like audible_product. It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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 provides clear operational context: it explains how to obtain the required input ('find one via a book's series[].asin field from GET /audible/product/{asin}'), which effectively teaches the agent when this tool is the right step in a workflow. It implies the contrast with the product endpoint but does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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