search_book_pages

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that the query is sent only to Gallica's documented ContentSearch API, that start is a zero-based offset, that access errors are incomplete checks rather than no hits, and that absence of an OCR hit does not prove absence from the scans. These are meaningful operational caveats an agent needs.

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?

Four compact sentences with the core purpose and prerequisite front-loaded, followed by return-value and caveat details. No sentence is wasted, though the caveat cluster is slightly dense.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return fields, but it still usefully clarifies that results are scan sequence numbers and stable page URLs rather than verified facts or printed page numbers. It also covers the main access-error caveat. The only gap is that limit behavior is not described.

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 explains document_id's source and start's zero-based meaning, but leaves query and limit semantics to the bare schema titles with no added clarification.

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 and resource ('Find OCR excerpts inside one Gallica book') and anchors the required document_id to its origin in search_online source='gallica'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that search across sources or retrieve metadata.

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?

Explains that document_id comes from search_online with source='gallica', giving clear context for when this tool applies. It does not name an explicit alternative tool to use instead when the book is not from Gallica, but the prerequisite is unambiguous.

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