search_books

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 adds useful context about pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), fallback behavior when query is missing, and metadata field filtering. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the response structure looks like (e.g., format of returned results).

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds specific value: query behavior, pagination details, field selection, and text field limits. There's minimal redundancy, though the structure could be slightly more organized with bullet points or clearer separation of concepts.

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?

Given the complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides adequate coverage for most parameters and basic behavior. However, it lacks details about the response format, error handling, and the undocumented 'library_name' parameter. For a search tool with multiple siblings, more guidance on tool selection would improve completeness.

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 for 6 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining 5 out of 6 parameters: query (with fallback behavior), limit and offset (pagination with defaults), fields (optional metadata selection), and text_field_limit (max length for text fields). Only 'library_name' is undocumented, leaving a minor gap in coverage.

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's purpose as 'Search for books matching a metadata query' with the verb 'search' and resource 'books', making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_book_details' (specific book) and 'search_book_content' (content search), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

The description provides some usage context by stating 'If query is not provided, lists all books,' which helps understand the tool's behavior with missing parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fts_search' or 'search_book_content,' leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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