search_books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the operation as 'search' and gives use cases, without confirming read-only behavior, pagination, quirks, or failure modes.

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 just two short, purposeful sentences: a clear function name and a scope sentence. No filler or redundant sections.

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 simple search tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, this description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly noting when to prefer search_books over search_text, but the sibling set and scope sentence make the use case clear.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions, so coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already 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 identifies the action as '搜索图书' (search books) and specifies applicable content types (technical books, academic materials, ebooks). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_videos and search_images.

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 phrase '适用于查找技术书籍、学术资料、电子书等' provides clear usage context for book-related searches. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling set makes the intended domain evident.

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