reading_search_chunks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, consistent with search. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no mention of pagination (limit parameter), result format, or behavior when no results match. For a read-only search tool, this is minimal additional value.

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 efficient sentence, but it sacrifices completeness. It is not verbose but lacks crucial information about parameters and usage, making it an acceptable but not optimal length.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It should explain the role of limit and bookId and hint at return types. The tool's complexity requires a richer description.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'keyword' which maps to the 'query' param, but does not explain 'limit' (pagination) or 'bookId' (scoping). This leaves the agent guessing about two of three parameters.

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 'Search book chunks by keyword' clearly states the verb (search), resource (book chunks), and method (by keyword). It is distinct from siblings like reading_list_chunks (listing without keyword) and reading_read_chunk (single chunk retrieval). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself, which would earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reading_list_chunks or reading_read_chunk. It lacks context about prerequisites, scope, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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