Quality report

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description confirms it's a report that identifies issues, adding no behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction, but limited additional transparency.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description lacks information about the output format or return structure. For a report tool, an agent would benefit from knowing if the result is a list of books, counts per category, or downloadable file. This gap reduces completeness given no output schema.

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%, with both limit and checks adequately described in the input schema. The description echoes 'missing metadata, covers, or other issues' which aligns with the checks enum, but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a quality report and identifies books with missing metadata, covers, or other issues. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_library_stats or find_duplicates by focusing on multiple quality checks for cleanup prioritization.

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 implies use for identifying cleanup tasks but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the purpose.

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