detect_scanned_books

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the ocr-extra requirement and the no-API-key fact, and the verb 'Find' implies a non-mutating scan of PDFs. It does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or performance costs, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 compact sentences deliver purpose, follow-up context, prerequisites, and parameter documentation without filler. The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, so return-value documentation is not needed. The description covers the task, prerequisite, parameter range, and next-step tool, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents the only parameter: 'limit: Maximum number of scanned books to report (1-200).' This adds meaning and a validation range that the input schema completely lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find library books whose PDF has no usable text layer (scanned pages).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_books and search_books, and connects it to the OCR workflow.

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?

It states when this tool matters ('Such books stay unsearchable until OCR'd') and names the follow-up tool ocr_book, plus the installation prerequisite. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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