audiobook_chapter_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: [local-compute] signals where processing happens, and the Quota line reveals the real cost — a GET /audiobooks/{id} call plus a paged GET /audiobooks/{id}/chapters call, implying pagination and a multi-call operation. The market gate is an additional behavioral constraint. It does not confirm read-only semantics or describe error/return behavior, but the cost and gating disclosures go well beyond a bare statement.

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 the purpose front-loaded and the market gate and quota clearly labeled. Every sentence earns its place, though the telegraphic all-caps labels make it slightly cramped rather than elegant.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core outputs (duration map, total runtime, midpoint) and the API cost, which partially substitutes for a return-value spec. Gaps remain: max_results semantics, whether response_format changes the computed midpoint or raw payload, and how this tool relates to the raw chapter endpoints.

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 67% — audiobook_id and response_format have descriptions, but max_results has none, and the description adds no per-parameter meaning. The critical question of what max_results caps (chapters fetched, map size, or something else) is left unanswered by both schema and description.

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 clear scope ('one audiobook') and three concrete computed outputs: a chapter-by-chapter duration map, total runtime, and the mid-point chapter. This reads as a distinct analytics aggregation rather than a raw listing, functionally separating it from siblings like get_audiobook_chapters and get_audiobook, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage signal is the MARKET GATE restriction (US/UK/CA/IE/NZ/AU only), which is a platform-level market exclusion rather than a tool-selection rule. There is no guidance on when to choose this over get_audiobook_chapters, audiobook_progress, or list_all_chapters, and no statement of the user need this tool answers.

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