Quality report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it checks for specific metadata issues and defaults to the whole library, with no contradiction.

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: the first states the purpose and scope, the second adds detail and read-only note. No wasted words.

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 the tool has 7 parameters (none required) and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description only partially covers the parameters. The output schema exists and likely explains return structure, but parameter guidance is insufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description only briefly references ids, query, and checks without explaining their meanings or syntax. Other parameters like limit, cursor, library, and readability are left entirely undocumented.

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 clearly states it scans books for metadata problems and lists specific checks (missing fields, raw-filename titles, invalid ISBNs, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like calibre_find_duplicates or calibre_recover_metadata.

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 says 'Defaults to the whole library; narrow with ids/query or specific checks' and 'Read-only,' providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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