search_books

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation is a read-oriented search and that it returns metadata and available formats, but it does not mention whether content must be indexed first, what scope of books is searched, or any pagination or side-effect behavior. Some transparency is present, but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the action, target, mode, and return payload. There is no filler or repetition; every part of the sentence contributes useful information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated, but the description still lacks guidance for choosing between this and similar sibling tools, parameter semantics, and any prerequisites. It supports a basic invocation with defaults but is not complete enough for reliable tool selection in a context with 'search_book_content' and 'index_book_content' as siblings.

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. It only implies that 'query' is a full-text search string, and says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset' pagination behavior or defaults. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does not add enough meaning to make up for the missing schema documentation.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Search Calibre books by full text,' and states the output payload ('metadata plus available formats'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling 'search_book_content', so an agent cannot tell whether this searches across the library or within a single book's content without inferring from the names.

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 this tool is for finding books by matching full-text content, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over 'search_book_content' or 'get_book_details', and no exclusions. The usage signal is only implied by the phrase 'by full text.'

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