search_books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON and gives examples, implying the query format and listing behavior. However, it does not detail the JSON structure, pagination, or potential errors.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a list of examples. Every part is essential, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and syntax.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'returns JSON' but does not specify the JSON structure. It covers the main use case (search with syntax) and listing behavior. For a parameter-rich tool with 100% schema coverage, it is largely complete.

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%, but the description adds value with example queries illustrating Calibre syntax, and clarifies that an empty query lists all books. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions to provide practical usage context.

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 verb 'searches' and resource 'books', specifying it uses Calibre's search syntax and returns JSON. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_book, convert_book, etc., which have different purposes.

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 provides clear guidance: use for searching with Calibre syntax, and leave query empty to list all books (with limit). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings, though none are direct competitors.

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