Book details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about record contents, including volatile data (problems reported, download and quality counts), which loosely explains the idempotentHint=false. However, it says nothing about error behavior for missing hashes, auth needs, or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the identifier-source sentence is placed last where it is most actionable. The field enumeration is slightly long, but each listed item is real content rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still orients the agent on what the record holds. Combined with the id-sourcing guidance, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly; only edge-case behavior (invalid/expired hash, missing record) is unaddressed.

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 both parameters (id and timeout_seconds) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the id sources but adds no syntax, format, or failure-mode detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 and resource ("Get the full record") and then enumerates exactly what the record contains: identifiers, edition, year, description, subjects, problems, counts. It is clearly the detail-lookup counterpart to the sibling search tools, so an agent can tell it apart from book_search/article_search/metadata_search without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says the tool takes a hash from book_search or article_search, or an id from metadata_search, which tells the agent this is the follow-up call after a search. It gives clear context but no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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