search_book_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses that the operation is a read-style search over indexed content and that results are chunks, but it does not explain what happens if books aren't indexed, whether content is ranked, or how book_ids scoping behaves in edge cases.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every component (verb, indexed source, chunk output, scope) 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?

The output schema covers return shape, but with no annotations and no usage guidance or parameter semantics, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently decide when to use it or how to set k. It is a minimum-viable description at best.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Within one or more Calibre books' clarifies book_ids, but query is only implied and k is not explained at all, leaving an important parameter undocumented.

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 ('Search'), a precise resource ('indexed text ... within one or more Calibre books'), and an output granularity ('relevant chunks'). This clearly differentiates it from search_books and index_book_content even without naming them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over search_books or when to run index_book_content first. The phrase 'indexed text' implies a prerequisite, but the description never states it explicitly or lists alternatives.

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