Search books

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination/hash workflow context, but it does not disclose rate limits, retry behavior, or result-quality caveats beyond what structured data provides.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return shape, then the next-step handoff. No filler and no repetition that wastes the agent's attention.

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 the description is not obliged to explain return values, and the hash-to-book_download handoff completes the task flow. Coverage is solid for a six-parameter search tool, with only the sibling-search distinction left implicit.

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 every parameter including page, limit, content, language, and timeout is already documented in the schema. The description restates the query fields ('by title, author, or topic') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's own text.

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 ('Search books, textbooks, manuals, and standards') and enumerates the queryable fields, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling article_search, which is the one alternative an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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 supplies a clear workflow context: search here, then 'Pass a selected hash to book_download.' That is real routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or a direct comparison against article_search, so it is not a full 5.

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