Search books

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds value by explaining that scope=book returns short keyword snippets often from TOC/front matter, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 relatively concise for the complexity of the tool, with front-loaded purpose and clear examples. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) and it mentions 'filter' and 'bundle' which may confuse if not explained further.

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 that output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on input semantics and behavior. It explains the core differences between modes, scopes, and filters, and references sibling tools. It lacks explanation on pagination (cursor) and sorting, which are in the schema but not described. Still, it is mostly complete for a search tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of mode, scope, countOnly, filter, and gives context for how query works. However, it does not explain all 12 parameters (e.g., bookId, cursor, sort, sortOrder, include_excluded, library). It covers about half the parameters, which is good but not comprehensive.

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 that this tool finds books by exact title, author, ISBN, tag, or Calibre query syntax (mode=meta), or by full text (mode=fts). It also distinguishes different scopes (library vs book) and provides specific guidance on when to use countOnly. This is specific verb+resource description with clear sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use calibre_semantic_search (for meaning/topic queries and within-book semantic search) instead of this tool, and advises using countOnly for 'how many' questions. It also explains that scope=book returns keyword snippets often from TOC/front matter, giving clear context for when each scope is appropriate.

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