register_interest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior. It states the core action and future notification effect, but does not disclose side effects, confirmation behavior, duplicate handling, or whether data is shared with the author. No contradiction with annotations exists because there are none.

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?

A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and purpose without any filler or repetition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, an agent is left guessing about return values, error cases, and the role of shareEmailWithAuthor. The description is not complete enough for fully confident invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. It only hints that 'reader' maps to name/email and 'unpublished book' maps to slug, but it does not clarify the optional shareEmailWithAuthor parameter or required input formats.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('register') with a clear object ('a reader's interest in an unpublished book') and outcome ('notified on publish'). It is distinct from sibling tools like publish_book and get_interested_readers.

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 clearly implies when to use it: for unpublished books that need reader interest captured. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'unpublished' qualifier and sibling context make the intended use reasonably clear.

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