audiobook_library_progress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the quota ('1 + N reads'), market-gating limitations, and error behavior. The read-only nature is implied by the quota wording and the tool's list-like description, which is sufficient for a non-destructive library query.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two clearly separated operational notes (quota and market gating). Every sentence adds relevant information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple read-only tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output content, sorting, quota, and market gating. However, it does not clarify the distinction between max_audiobooks and max_results, and it lacks sibling differentiation, leaving some selection and invocation ambiguity.

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 50%: max_results and response_format already have descriptions, while sort and max_audiobooks do not. The description adds meaning for sort by emphasizing progress sorting and confirms the tool's scope, but it does not explain max_audiobooks or how it relates to max_results. The compensation for the schema gap is only partial.

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 resource ('all saved audiobooks'), the key data shown (percent complete and estimated time remaining), and the default organization ('sorted by progress'). The phrase 'what am I actually reading' conveys the user intent well. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like audiobook_progress or get_saved_audiobooks, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 operational details such as quota and market gating, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over similar audiobook-related siblings like audiobook_progress, get_saved_audiobooks, or search_audiobooks. There is no explicit 'use this when' or mention of alternatives.

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