search_book_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('list of hits with text snippets') and pagination behavior via offset, but lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core functionality, describing the return format, and explaining two parameters. However, the structure could be improved by front-loading the most critical information about all parameters.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'library_name' does, doesn't clarify the relationship between 'book_id' and 'library_name', and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially does so. It explains 'hit_limit' and 'offset' parameters, but doesn't mention 'book_id', 'query', or 'library_name' at all. The three undocumented parameters remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 searches for text within a book and returns hits with snippets, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_books' or 'fts_search', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_books' or 'fts_search'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate or what distinguishes it from similar tools.

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