Search catalogs

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 and external-call profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those hints: results span multiple third-party catalogs and include records with no downloadable file, which sets expectations for return content. It does not mention rate limits or retry behavior, though the schema's timeout_seconds parameter partially covers that.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct load: what is searched, the workflow handoff, and the details handoff. The most decision-relevant information (catalogs, no-downloadable-file scope) is front-loaded.

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?

All 11 parameters are covered by a 100% schema, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the workflow positioning against book_search and book_details that the structured fields cannot express.

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 is already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only reinforces a couple of fields indirectly (query by ISBN or title, id-based lookup for book_details) and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 library catalogs ... for books') and names the concrete sources (Open Library, WorldCat, ISBNdb, Goodreads, Google Books). It explicitly separates itself from book_search by noting it covers books with no downloadable file, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

Gives explicit routing: use this to find ISBNs/editions/publication details, then use book_search by ISBN or title for files, and pass an id to book_details for identifiers. Both the intended step in the workflow and the alternatives are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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