get_book

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

Annotations already declare the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes further by disclosing the parsing strategy (__NEXT_DATA__/Apollo state rather than DOM), the payload contents (ratings histogram, series memberships, review-language breakdown), and the default/max on review_language_limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the id contract and tightly organized into three short paragraphs, each with a distinct job. The closing citation instruction is slightly tangential but short enough to justify its place.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it still names the notable payload sections. Combined with the id constraints, the alternative-tool routing, and the parameter semantics, nothing needed to call this 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it defines book_id formats (numeric, numeric-slug, dot-slug) and describes review_language_limit's purpose, default of 5, and maximum of 25.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get full details for a book') and immediately bounds the scope with the accepted id format. It also distinguishes itself from adjacent operations by clarifying that an ISBN is not a valid id and pointing to search_books.

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?

Explicitly says when this tool is the right one, gives the prerequisite ('find the book with search_books first'), and routes a sibling use case ('use get_reviews for the actual review text'). The agent has no guesswork left.

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