search_books

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds non-obvious implementation behaviors: 'JSON autocomplete endpoint (no auth, no HTML parsing)' and the hard cap of roughly '~5 matches' regardless of max_results. It also lists return fields, giving the agent accurate expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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: purpose first, then implementation/return behavior, then the max_results caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only search, the description covers auth, parsing behavior, return contents, and result cap. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated, and no invocation-critical information 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?

The schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It gives query meaning ('by title/author/ISBN') and fully explains max_results, including that larger values do not increase results beyond the endpoint's ~5-match limit. This is sufficient, though query syntax could be more detailed.

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: 'Search Goodreads for books by title/author/ISBN.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_book (specific book) or author_books (author-scoped) by emphasizing broad search.

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?

It establishes a clear use case: finding books by title, author, or ISBN. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it over more specific sibling tools.

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