Search Reknihy books

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing return fields and noting the catalog is public, which implies no authentication needed. It does not disclose pagination or result structure, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 waste. The action and scope are front-loaded, followed by a useful parameter tip and return-field list. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with rich schema coverage and safety annotations, the description captures the essential return fields and public scope. Since there is no output schema, the lack of explicit list/pagination structure is a minor gap, but overall the definition is adequate.

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%, and the one parameter hint in the description ('Use author for exact author searches') largely duplicates the schema's own author description. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the already thorough schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search the public Reknihy.cz catalog.' It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing public catalog search rather than specific book retrieval. The mention of author exact search and listed return fields further clarifies scope.

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?

Provides clear parameter usage guidance: 'Use author for exact author searches.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like find_book_by_isbn or get_book, leaving tool-selection context implied.

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