get_book

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it parses __NEXT_DATA__ JSON rather than scraping the DOM, which affects robustness, and it enumerates exactly what data is returned. This gives an agent useful expectations about how the tool behaves and why it is reliable.

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 organized into three compact, purposeful sections: the core action, the notable behavior/content, and a citation instruction. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition of schema fields. The technical detail about __NEXT_DATA__ is justified because it explains robustness rather than being extraneous.

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?

Given the rich annotations, an output schema, and only two parameters, the description covers all necessary ground: it explains what data is included, how parameters behave, how the tool parses pages, and how to use the returned 'url'. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters, and it does. It details the accepted book_id formats (numeric or numeric-slug with an example) and specifies review_language_limit's default and maximum. This compensates completely for the lack of schema-description text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a book by its Goodreads id.' It also disambiguates from siblings by listing what the tool includes (ratings histogram, series memberships, review-language breakdown) and explicitly hands off review text to get_reviews. This is enough for an agent to know exactly what this tool is for.

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 explicitly directs agents to use get_reviews when actual review text is needed, which is a clear usage boundary. It also explains the effect of review_language_limit and instructs agents to link to the book's 'url' when citing details. It does not broadly cover when to choose this over search_books or similar_books, but the context is clear enough for typical selection.

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