get_shelf

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: no authentication needed, the RSS page size (~100 items) and 1-based pagination, the ValueError failure mode, and the defaulting to the configured GOODREADS_USER_ID.

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 core action, then constraints, pagination, and defaults in short sentences; the closing note about linking the 'link' field is a compact, useful output cue. No filler.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining agent-relevant details — auth, valid inputs, error behavior, pagination, defaults — are all supplied. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 carries the full burden and does: shelf (case-sensitive, must match a known shelf, empty = all shelves, defaults implied), page (1-based, ~100 items per page), and user_id (defaults to configured GOODREADS_USER_ID). All three parameters gain meaning not present in the bare schema.

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 ('List books on a shelf') plus the mechanism ('via its RSS feed'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_books and get_book.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: public shelves need no auth, names are case-sensitive and must match a shelf from list_shelves or ValueError is raised, and an empty name lists all shelves. It points at the list_shelves sibling for valid inputs, though it does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this over search_books.

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