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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by saying 'live sale information,' which aligns with and reinforces the openWorldHint by warning that data may change between calls. No contradiction with annotations. It does not add further detail about response shape, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's core function, the second tells the agent where to source the required IDs. Both sentences earn their place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple detail-retrieval tool with two fully described parameters, an output schema, and readOnly/openWorld annotations, nothing essential is missing. The description effectively completes the picture by linking the tool to its upstream siblings.

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 100%, so both parameters are already described. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the provenance of the parameters — that titleId and bookId come from search_books or suggest_books — which is operationally useful for an agent deciding how to populate them.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('metadata and live sale information for one physical copy'), clearly identifying what the tool does. The 'one physical copy' phrasing helps distinguish it from list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool for contrast.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use titleId and bookId returned by search_books or suggest_books,' which tells the agent how to obtain the required arguments. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_available_copies or other siblings, leaving some routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'recommended by Knihobot' but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as result stability, pagination, or recommendation criteria. No contradiction with annotations.

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 declarative sentence that front-loads the action ('Return books') and the resource ('recommended by Knihobot') with no filler or redundant wording.

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 simple read-only lookup with a required editionId, detailed output schema, and strong annotations, the essential call context is present. The only notable gap is the lack of clarification on how recommendations differ from suggest_books, which is a minor omission.

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 description reinforces that editionId is the target edition, which the schema already documents as 'Knihobot mother/edition ID'. It adds little for limit, though limit's default, minimum, and maximum are already in the schema. 50% schema description coverage is only partially compensated by the description.

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 states a clear action and resource: return books recommended by Knihobot for a specific edition. It is distinct from search_books, get_book_detail, and list_available_copies, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named suggest_books sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: call this tool when you have a specific editionId and want Knihobot's recommendations for it. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as suggest_books, leaving the selection decision partially to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. The phrase 'currently offered' adds useful context that availability is dynamic and may change over time, and 'physical copies' clarifies the resource type. No additional behavioral detail is needed beyond what annotations already cover.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and object come first, and the parameter provenance is given in the second sentence. Every word contributes to correct invocation.

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 simple list-by-edition tool, the description covers the core purpose, the source of the required parameter, and the dynamic nature of the data. An output schema is present, so return values do not need to be spelled out in the description. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, leaving no critical gap.

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 schema already documents editionId with a clear description and constraints, giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by telling the agent where to obtain editionId, which is practical semantic guidance beyond the schema field definition. This modest addition justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists physical copies offered for one edition. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_books and get_recommendations by focusing on edition-level copy availability. The title and description together make the tool's role unambiguous.

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 tells the agent that editionId should come from get_book_detail or search_books, giving concrete usage flow. It implies this tool is for retrieving available copies for a known edition rather than searching for editions. It could be stronger with an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the guidance is clear enough.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those: results are grouped into 'sale-ready title groups,' a physical copy is 'highlighted,' and the returned IDs are intended for downstream detail tools. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the return value summarized compactly. Every phrase adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

Given 13 parameters and many optional filter IDs, the description is too high-level to fully orient an agent. It covers the core search purpose and return shape, and the presence of an output schema and annotations helps, but it leaves filter semantics and defaults such as inStockOnly and languageIds to the schema, which itself is sparse on several parameters.

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 only 38%, and the description does not compensate for the many undocumented filter parameters. It does not explain authorIds, categoryIds, conditionIds, bindingIds, publisherIds, yearMin/yearMax, or pagination behavior. The only implicit semantic link is that 'Search' maps to the required query parameter.

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 states a specific action on a specific resource: 'Search the public Knihobot catalog.' It also clearly characterizes the result as 'sale-ready title groups with the highlighted physical copy, price, availability and IDs needed by the detail tools,' which distinguishes it from sibling detail tools like get_book_detail and list_available_copies.

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 is the entry point for searching the catalog and that results feed into detail tools, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over suggest_books or get_recommendations, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. Usage context is present but only implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that safety profile. It adds 'fast' and 'public', which are useful behavioral hints, but it lacks details like whether results are ranked or how failures behave.

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 clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, though it could have added a routing hint without much extra length.

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?

The output schema covers return shape and annotations cover the safety profile, so those gaps are acceptable. However, missing usage guidance and query semantics leave an agent without enough context to confidently choose this tool over search_books or get_recommendations.

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 query parameter has no schema description, and the tool description does not explain how matching works (prefix, fuzzy, full-text) or how languageIds affects results. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented query semantics, but it does not.

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 ('Return') and clearly enumerates the resource types (books, authors, publishers, categories, labels, series). It conveys an autocomplete-style suggestion tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like get_recommendations.

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 search_books or get_recommendations. The intended use is only implied by the word 'suggestions', with no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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