Search books by title

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining wildcard support and default partial matching. It provides a concrete example ('ring' finds 'The Lord of the Rings'), which helps the agent understand the search behavior without contradicting the 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 only two sentences, with the main action and key differentiator in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second clarifies the default behavior and provides an example. No wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters (one required), no output schema, and is a search tool, the description could be more complete by mentioning return format or pagination. However, the annotations cover safety, and the schema already documents parameters and defaults. The description focuses on the key differentiator (wildcard, simpler interface), which is appropriate for a quick-lookup tool. Missing return value details slightly lower the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the wildcard behavior and providing a concrete example of partial matching. While the schema already describes each parameter, the description's summary and example enhance understanding, warranting a score of 4.

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 function: 'Search books by title with wildcard support.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (books by title), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search_books' by noting it is a 'Simpler interface' for 'quick title lookups.' This provides a precise and differentiated purpose.

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 advises when to use this tool over alternatives: 'Simpler interface than search_books for quick title lookups.' It also demonstrates default partial matching with an example ('ring' finds 'The Lord of the Rings'), guiding the agent on expected behavior. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the comparison is clear.

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