Get Knihobot book detail

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.