Verify a quotation

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it reports the strictest match tier, returns every location with the book's actual lines, and falls back to the closest real passage when no match exists.

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?

One dense sentence carries the capability and return tiers, and a short second sentence gives the call-to-action. Everything is front-loaded and each clause (match tiers, locations, closest-passage fallback) earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and full schema coverage on parameters, the description needs only to convey purpose, usage context, and match-report behavior — all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so id, quote, and case_sensitive are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's mention of "typography-only differences, case, or punctuation" loosely echoes the case_sensitive behavior but adds no new parameter syntax or constraints.

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: check whether a quotation appears in a Project Gutenberg book, including the match-strictness tiers it reports. This functionally separates it from a plain full-text search like find_in_book, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"Use it before quoting a public-domain book" gives a clear when-to-use context. It stops short of excluding cases (e.g. use find_in_book for raw occurrences, read_passage to fetch surrounding text) or naming alternatives.

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