similar_books

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those: results paginate in batches, limit is capped at 100, and each result includes book_id/title/author/rating/url. This is meaningful context without contradicting 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the additional details about result fields, chaining, pagination, and limit cap each earn their 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?

For a simple two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the data source, result contents, chaining opportunities, pagination, and limit cap. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 explains the limit cap and pagination behavior, but does not elaborate on book_id semantics beyond 'the given one.' The default limit is already in the schema, so the description adds some but not full parameter clarity.

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 clearly states the tool returns books similar to a given one, using Goodreads' own recommendation graph. This distinguishes it from web search and implies a specific resource and behavior. The 'Readers also enjoyed' framing makes the purpose immediately recognizable.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when Goodreads' recommendation graph is needed, and notes that it is hard to reproduce via web search. It also suggests chaining into get_book or get_reviews, but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or when not to use them.

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