List available Knihobot copies

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.