bookshelf_lookup_book

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares safety, so the description's 'Search' verb is consistent. However, it adds minimal behavioral context—no mention of rate limits, pagination, what happens with an empty term, or the meaning of 'metadata provider'.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it could add more substance without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simple schema and output schema, the description still lacks context about the metadata provider, expected return behavior, or relationship to local library search. It is not complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'by term', confirming the 'term' parameter is a search query, but gives no details on format, requiredness, or behavior. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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 action (search) and resource (books via metadata provider). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_book' (local listing) and 'search' (likely broader), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bookshelf_search' or 'bookshelf_list_book'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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