author_books

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

Even with annotations declaring read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, the description adds substantial value: it reveals that the tool resolves the primary author, ranks by popularity, returns specific fields, paginates results, and caps limit at 100. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to predict output.

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: the purpose appears in the first sentence, and the following two sentences add only high-value behavioral details. No filler, no repetition of annotations or schema.

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?

Combined with the annotations and output schema, the description covers input semantics, output contents, pagination, and the limit cap. There is nothing essential missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that book_id is a book identifier (not an author ID) and that limit is capped at 100 beyond its schema default. The id format and accepted values are not given, but core semantics are well covered.

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 ('List') and resource ('an author's works/bibliography') and makes the unique input clear ('given any of their books'). This distinguishes it from siblings like similar_books or series_books without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 trigger condition 'given any of their books' is clear, but the description never mentions alternatives or exclusion criteria. An agent must infer when to prefer author_books over similar_books or series_books, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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