Search Project Gutenberg

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a brief note about what is returned (ids, titles, authors with life years, subjects, popularity), but nothing about ranking or result limits beyond what the page parameter schema already says.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the capability statement comes first and the follow-up routing hint second, both earning their 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?

For a filtered search tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description covers purpose, filters and next steps adequately. It omits nothing an agent needs to invoke it, though it could note result ordering or when the catalog search is preferable to a per-book sibling.

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 every parameter (query, author, topic, language, page) is already documented with examples in the schema. The description's 'by title and author words, optionally filtered by language and topic' largely restates that mapping without adding syntax or format detail — baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (Project Gutenberg catalog) with scope (75,000+ public-domain books) and the searchable fields. The final sentence routes the agent to get_book and the reading tools, so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly describes the search context and explicitly hands off to get_book / reading tools after finding an id, which is genuine routing guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over siblings like book_stats, but no exclusions are needed for a catalog search entry point.

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