书籍详情

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar for safety disclosure. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact endpoint, the percent scale for newRating, how to render deepLink as a markdown link, and the fallback user message on failure.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then covers response rendering, then failure behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, though the field list is slightly dense.

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 presence of an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral extras: endpoint, display rule, and error fallback. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but that is minor for such a simple read tool.

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 100% and the single parameter book_id is already described in the schema with its source ('来自 search_books 等接口的 bookId'). The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('获取'), a clear resource ('/book/info'), and a precise scope: basic book information including title, author, translator, description, category, publisher, ISBN, word count, and rating scale. This is sufficient to distinguish get_book_info from sibling tools like get_book_chapters or get_book_highlights.

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 implies when to use the tool — when basic book details are needed — and the schema notes that book_id comes from search_books, which hints at a workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for alternative needs.

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