Search books

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details such as scope=book returning short keyword snippets with first hits often in TOC/front matter, and recommends calibre_semantic_search for ranked passages. No contradictions.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose and mode distinctions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (return values documented elsewhere), the description covers core usage and key behaviors well. Minor gaps (e.g., pagination via cursor not mentioned) prevent a perfect score.

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 mode, scope, and countOnly, but leaves parameters like limit, sort, cursor, library, bookId, and sortOrder unaddressed. While the key parameters are covered, the lack of detail for others limits full parameter understanding.

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 'Find' and resource 'books', distinguishes between meta and fts modes, and differentiates scope=library vs scope=book. It also contrasts with sibling tool calibre_semantic_search, making its unique purpose evident.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use each mode (meta for exact metadata search, fts for full-text), when to prefer calibre_semantic_search (for meaning/topic queries), and when to use countOnly=true. This provides clear decision-making context.

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