도서 상세 정보

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (retrieve detailed information using ISBN) without mentioning any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ISBN is invalid), response format, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (using ISBN to retrieve detailed book info), making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, the response format, or any behavioral aspects like error conditions. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'isbn' fully documented in the schema as '도서의 ISBN (10자리 또는 13자리)' (book's ISBN, 10 or 13 digits). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 tool's purpose: 'ISBN을 이용해 도서의 상세 정보를 조회합니다' (Retrieve detailed book information using ISBN). It specifies the verb ('조회합니다' - retrieve) and resource ('도서의 상세 정보' - detailed book information), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_books' or 'get_new_books', which might also retrieve book information but with different scopes or filters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_books' (for broader searches) or 'get_new_books' (for recent releases), leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone. There's no explicit context, exclusions, or prerequisites stated.

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