get_chapter

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: chapter 0 is front matter, the operation costs $0.005 via x402, and it requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY with USDC on Base. It does not cover potential errors or return format, but the special-case and payment details exceed baseline expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: sentence 1 states purpose, sentence 2 clarifies an edge case, sentence 3 gives usage guidance and cost. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a tool with only two params and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is returned ('full text'), the special chapter-0 case, cost, auth requirement, and a pointer to the metadata tool for range validation. It does not describe error behavior or response format, but these are somewhat implicit given 'full text' and the overall simplicity.

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%, so the description only needs to add marginal value. It slightly reinforces the meaning of 'chapter' by restating 'Chapter 0 is front matter' (already in the schema) and mentions book_id/chapter, but adds no new parameter-level syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Full text of one chapter from an indexed book by book_id and chapter number.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on retrieving chapter text, and explicitly directs users to get_book_metadata for range validation.

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 states when to use the tool (to retrieve full chapter text) and even names an alternative for a related task ('Use get_book_metadata for the valid chapter range'). It also notes the payment requirement and cost, which implies usage constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., when only metadata is needed), leaving that slightly implicit.

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