search_books

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 communicates that the operation is a read-oriented search and that results include availability status, but it does not explain how available_only affects results, whether filters combine, or whether there are result limits. This is adequate but thin.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary operation and criteria are front-loaded, and the return value is mentioned compactly.

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 four optional parameters and no annotations, an agent gets enough to make a basic title/author/genre search but not enough to know how optional filters interact or what happens when no criteria are supplied. The output schema helps, but the description still leaves important usage gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by identifying title, author, and genre as search criteria, but it is silent on the available_only parameter, whose semantics an agent must infer from its name and default alone. It also leaves filter combination behavior unspecified.

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 operation (searches for books), the resource (books in the library), and the supported criteria (title, author, genre). It is not a tautology and is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_book, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies this tool is for broad catalog search by title, author, or genre, which is reasonable context for use. However, it never explicitly states when to choose search_books over a direct lookup like get_book, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use conditions.

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