Books — Search across all databases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Search simultaneously' without disclosing behaviors like rate limiting across 3 external APIs, network latency implications, failure handling when one database is down, or that deduplication and similarityThreshold affect result merging. The description is silent on what the aggregation actually does to results beyond combining them.

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 efficient sentence that communicates the core aggregate functionality. Zero waste. However, given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, 3 data sources, dedup logic), one might argue it's slightly under-specified rather than appropriately concise, but the sentence structure itself is clean and front-loaded with the key verb.

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 complex aggregate tool with 13 parameters covering multi-source deduplication, per-source limits, source toggles, and similarity thresholds. No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about result format, how results from different sources are merged/ordered, or return structure. For a tool this complex with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete.

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 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no special semantic value beyond 'search for books and publications.' With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't convey aggregations or interactions between parameters like maxResultsPerSource, deduplicateResults, and similarityThreshold affecting merged output.

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 uses a specific verb 'Search simultaneously' with a clear resource scope ('across Google Books, Open Library, and LIBRIS for books and publications'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like books_google_search (single source), scholarly_search_across_all (different domain - scholarly works vs books), and individual database tools. The 'across all databases' scope is explicit.

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 notes the simultaneous cross-database nature but does not explicitly state when to use this vs a single-source search like books_google_search or books_openlibrary_search. It doesn't mention alternatives for narrower per-database filtering. The aggregate-search purpose is implied but no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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