bookshelf_get_book

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

The description simply says 'Fetch', which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, but adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose potential error cases, response behavior, or any special handling. Since annotations already declare the read-only nature, the description contributes no additional transparency value.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 single-resource retrieval tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly identifies the operation and resource. However, it omits any mention of failure modes or id validation, but the simplicity of the tool and existing annotations offset this gap. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it only repeats 'by id' without explaining what the id represents or how it is used. The schema provides type integer and required status, yet the description adds no semantic detail beyond the parameter name. This is insufficient for a low-coverage case.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a single book', with the scope limited by 'by id'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bookshelf_list_book (fetches multiple books) and bookshelf_create_book, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: it is the obvious choice when a single book must be retrieved by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this over alternatives like bookshelf_get_book_overview or bookshelf_lookup_book, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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