search_books

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses cost ($0.005 via x402), required WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, and USDC on Base, which is important. However, it omits other behavioral details such as rate limits, error handling, or whether the search is read-only, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and example, followed by return behavior and cost. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail or fluff.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: search method, examples, ranking, book_id for drill-down, and cost. It does not explain pagination or response format, but for a search tool with simple parameters, it is reasonably 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds examples ('Dickens', 'Frankenstein') and clarifies substring matching, but these are minor enhancements over the schema's existing descriptions. It does not add significant meaning to limit 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Search'), resource ('indexed public-domain book corpus'), and method ('by title or author substring'), with concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns book_id for drill-down into metadata, chapters, quotes, or full-text search, positioning it as the entry point to related tools.

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 implies usage context by mentioning drill-down capabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like search_literature or get_book_metadata. There is no 'when-to-use' or alternative recommendation, so guidance is only implicit.

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