Suggest Knihobot entities

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.