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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses ordering (available branches first), the conditional due_date field and its format, that due_date only appears when only_available=False, and the empty-string fallback when the data source misses. It omits error handling and any permission/latency context, which keeps it from a 5.

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 body is front-loaded with the core behavior and then a compact parameter list, so it reads efficiently. The due_date explanation is worth its space, though the parameter block partly restates names and defaults already visible in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description still adds useful field-level nuance (due_date, ordering, empty string). For a 3-parameter read tool with no annotations, this is nearly complete; only failure/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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 0% and the description fully compensates: book_id is tied to search_books output and constrained to the same city, city carries its default value, and only_available is explained as a true/false filter with distinct result sets. This adds meaning well beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource — querying a book's holdings and borrowable status across branches — and immediately differentiates itself by noting the relationship to search_books (book_id must come from there and share the same city). An agent can distinguish it from search_books and get_book_detail without opening any schema.

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?

It clearly establishes the context in which this tool applies (called after search_books, with matching city) and explains the only_available switch as the main usage decision. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer get_book_detail or what to do on a failed lookup, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a non-obvious data trait: the Shanghai source has no dedicated summary block, so 内容简介 is pulled from the '附注' field and may carry native prefixes. That is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the return contents, then the data-source caveat, then the parameters – a sensible order with no filler. It is somewhat long for two parameters, but every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and both parameters plus the cross-tool coupling are covered. The remaining gap is the absence of any safety/permission statement for a tool with zero annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: book_id is defined as 'the book ID returned by search_books' with a same-city coupling constraint, and city is defined with its default. Both parameters gain semantics that the bare schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('查询指定图书的完整介绍') and enumerates the fields returned (书名、作者、出版社、ISBN、索书号、内容简介), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It references search_books as the ID source but never states how it differs from find_book_availability, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives a real prerequisite: book_id must come from search_books and must be paired with the same city used in that search, which is actionable context an agent would otherwise get wrong. It stops short of any when-not-to-use or explicit alternative routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the pagination contract (null total_results, iterate page until has_next is false or books is empty), states the actual data-source coverage limit (only shanghai, other cities pending), and explains the role of book_id as a follow-up credential. No auth, permission, or rate-limit details are given.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then operational notes (city coverage, paging), then parameters. Every sentence earns its place and the parameter block is justified given 0% schema coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields needn't be explained, yet the description helpfully explains the semantics of total_results/has_next/books that the agent needs for paging. Combined with the parameter and coverage notes, the definition is essentially complete for calling this 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, and it does: keyword is defined semantically (title/ISBN/author), city is given its default and its only valid value, and page/limit are named with defaults. The page/limit descriptions add no behavior beyond the schema defaults, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('按关键字搜索...馆藏图书') plus scope (paginated list, city coverage). It hints at downstream use of book_id but never names the sibling tools (get_book_detail, find_book_availability), so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Gives clear context for use: keyword matching on title/ISBN/author, default city shanghai with only shanghai currently supported. It also explains the paging protocol when total_results is null, which is genuine when-to-continue guidance, though it offers no explicit when-not-to-use-this-tool statement.

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