list_booktitles

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by disclosing fuzzy search behavior and default collection_ids. However, it does not explain pagination, result format, or any side effects. The coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 very brief (three lines) with no wasted words. Each phrase adds value: the action, the feature, and a default. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on the output (e.g., returned fields, sorting) and does not fully explain parameters. The tool's basic function is clear, but essential context for an agent to use it correctly 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%, and the description only explains the default for collection_ids. The 'query' and 'limit' parameters are not described. 'fuzzy' is mentioned but not elaborated, leaving ambiguity about how the query string is used.

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 states 'Search booktitles (fuzzy)' with a clear verb and resource, and adds the distinctive feature of per-collection counts. It differentiates from sibling list tools like list_authors or list_collections by focusing on book titles with fuzzy matching.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_papers or list_collections. The description only mentions a default for collection_ids, but not the appropriate scenarios for each sibling.

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