Quality report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description correctly echoes 'Read-only' and adds no contradiction. The description adds value by disclosing default scope (whole library) and narrowing mechanisms, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotations' safety profile.

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, highly informative with no wasted words. The first sentence lists specific check types for quick scanning, and the second sentence covers scoping and read-only nature. 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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The 8-parameter tool is well-covered by the description's guidance on scoping and check types. Minor gap: no mention of pagination support via 'cursor' or how 'limit' interacts with default scope, but the overall completeness is high.

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 description coverage is 0%, putting the full burden on the description. The description explains the purpose of 'filter' as 'a bundle name' and 'checks' as specific check types, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it doesn't detail all 8 parameters (e.g., 'cursor', 'readability' are only schema-named), so some parameters remain opaque.

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 specifies the verb 'Scan' and the resource 'books for metadata problems', listing specific problem types (missing fields, raw-filename titles, invalid ISBNs, author-sort mismatches, series gaps). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on quality reporting rather than search, get, or list operations.

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 states 'Defaults to the whole library; narrow with ids/query/filter (a bundle name) or specific checks', providing clear guidance on how to narrow scope. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives among the sibling tools, but the context is clear.

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