Search book content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool may extract the book to plain text as a fallback and returns matches with surrounding context. This goes beyond the annotations by disclosing potential resource usage and the search strategy.

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. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial behavioral details. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 implies the return format (matches with context) but does not explicitly describe the output structure. Given the absence of an output schema, full transparency would require detailing what the response contains. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'surrounding context' which is already captured in the contextChars parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly add parameter meaning 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's purpose: searching for text within a specific book's content. It also explains the fallback mechanism when Calibre FTS is unavailable, which adds precision. The verb and resource are unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like full_text_search that may search across books.

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 usage when searching inside a specific book's content, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with alternatives like full_text_search. Sibling tools exist for broader searches, but no guidance is provided for selection.

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