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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'search' and lists output fields, which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly declare it. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or any constraints. For a search tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second lists the returned fields. Every word is functional, and the structure is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool has 11 parameters, an output schema exists, and there are 12 sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination, field-specific search, date filtering, location filtering, or the token parameter. The agent would lack essential context to use the tool effectively, especially for non-trivial queries.

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?

The description adds no information about any of the 11 parameters. Schema coverage is 55% (6 parameters have descriptions in the schema), but the description does not compensate for the 5 parameters without descriptions (page, page_size, pub_year_min, pub_year_max, token). It also does not explain how the query parameter is interpreted (e.g., keyword matching, Boolean operators). The output description is helpful but does not aid parameter usage.

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 states the tool's core function: searching the library catalog and returning a list of specific fields (title, author, publisher, ISBN, location, availability). The verb '检索' (search) is specific and the resource '馆藏书目' (library catalog) is well-defined. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, the sibling tools are mostly specialized (detail, availability, hot, new, classification), making this the general search tool.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts. With 12 sibling tools including get_book_detail, browse_classification, and union_search, the lack of differentiation or usage hints leaves 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.