Get Book Detail

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.