search_saved_audiobooks

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

With readOnlyHint/idempotentHint already covering the safety profile, the description usefully adds that scanning is bounded and filtering is client-side, plus the underlying quota constraint ('GET /me/audiobooks paged'). This tells the agent that scan_cap governs coverage and that the operation is quota-sensitive — real context beyond the annotations.

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 terse sentences, fully front-loaded, with zero filler. The core purpose leads and the operational note follows.

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 4-param, fully-documented search tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the scan-and-filter model and the quota constraint. It doesn't state the return shape, but response_format in the schema covers that, leaving only a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, scan_cap, max_results, and response_format. The description's 'bounded walk' loosely reinforces scan_cap semantics but adds no format, syntax, or default details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search saved audiobooks') and the parenthetical clarifies the mechanism (bounded walk + client-side filter). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_saved_tracks or search_saved_albums, though the differentiation rests on the media noun rather than explicit contrast in the text.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and resource type — an agent can infer it searches the user's saved audiobook library. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives for other media types, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. scope requirements).

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