get_chapter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the resume position feature requires the 'user-read-playback-position' scope, which is useful, and it specifies market availability. However, it does not mention the overall authentication requirement, whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), rate limits, or error behavior. It provides some context but leaves several behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by critical constraints (scope and market). It is front-loaded and efficient. It could improve by adding an explicit pointer to a sibling tool for listing chapters, but that is optional and would not add much length.

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?

The tool is simple (two params, no output schema), and the description covers the purpose, a scope requirement, and market restrictions. However, it does not specify what 'full details' includes (e.g., chapter duration, audio preview, narration) nor any error handling. Given no output schema, the agent must infer the return structure. For a simple GET this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (id and market) with 100% coverage. The tool description repeats the market availability but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema. Thus it adds minimal value over the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('full details for a single audiobook chapter'), and the identifier ('by ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like get_audiobook (for the audiobook itself) and get_audiobook_chapters (for listing chapters). It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The 'Resume position' scope requirement is a prerequisite for a feature, not usage guidance. Usage context is implied by the resource type, but there is no direct instruction like 'use get_audiobook_chapters to list all chapters'.

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