book_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only. It only lists output fields without explaining their semantics or any potential limitations, leaving key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise and front-loads the core purpose. It is a single sentence with a list of returned fields, and every word earns its place. It loses a point because the reference to `lib info` may be unclear to an agent without external context, but overall it is well-structured and brief.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context, but it fails to define the meaning of 'metrics', 'subscores', or 'hard_triggers' and does not explain how the output is structured. The presence of sibling tools suggests a need to differentiate usage, yet no such context is provided. The simple parameter list does not compensate for the missing depth.

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 input schema has one required parameter (`book_id`) with no schema description, and the parameter description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so no additional meaning is added beyond the parameter name. The agent has no guidance on the expected format, source, or constraints of the book ID, making this a significant gap.

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 identifies the resource (a book) and the type of data returned (metadata and quality metrics). It lists specific fields and references `lib info`, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on listings, chapters, or quote verification. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'returns', making it slightly less direct.

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 such as list_books or get_chapters. The mention of `lib info` is a reference to an external command, not an alternative tool, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. The agent is left to infer the usage context from the tool name alone.

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