audiobook_progress

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does add useful context by disclosing the quota: two GET requests (audiobook + chapters), which implies a read-only rollup operation. However, it does not describe behavior for missing progress, invalid IDs, or how the fields are derived.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a separate useful quota note. Every part earns its place without wasted words.

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 progress lookup, the description covers the output fields and quota despite the lack of an output schema or annotations. It is reasonably complete for straightforward invocation, though edge cases like unplayed audiobooks or market-dependent data are not addressed.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It slightly reinforces the audiobook focus but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as an audiobook progress rollup and enumerates the output fields: chapters total, played count, current chapter, percent complete. It is specific about the resource and the produced summary, though it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to differentiate itself from.

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 a progress-summary use case, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings like get_audiobook_chapters, audiobook_chapter_map, audiobook_library_progress, or chapter_bookmarks. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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