Search Books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It notes the backing store (Firestore) but never states that this is a read-only operation, nor describes matching behavior, result ordering, or pagination. For an unannotated tool this is a notable disclosure gap.

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 that names the resource, the primary matcher, and the optional filter with zero filler. It could earn a 5 only by adding a differentiating clause, but it is efficiently sized.

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 values need not be explained, and all parameters are documented. What is missing is the usage context (when to pick this over sibling search/list tools), leaving the definition minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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 100%, with each of the three parameters already documented (limit default, query match against title/author, shelf enum values). The description repeats the query and shelf semantics without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (books) plus the matching mechanism (query) and the shelf filter. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_reading_list or log_read_book, which an agent might confuse for book-related operations.

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 only restates the optional shelf values with no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer search_books over get_reading_list or search_vault, and no prerequisites. An agent must infer the retrieval-vs-list distinction on its own.

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