get_book_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. '조회합니다' signals a read-only lookup, which is useful, but the description does not disclose the response structure, optional-parameter effects (e.g., loaninfoYN/displayInfo dependencies), or error behavior.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the key lookup criterion (ISBN) is front-loaded and the sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and many closely related siblings, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what '상세 정보' includes, how optional loan-info parameters interact, or when this tool should be chosen over get_book_keywords/search_books.

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%, so the schema already documents isbn13, loaninfoYN, and displayInfo. The description only adds that lookup is by ISBN, which maps to isbn13; it does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb (조회합니다) and resource (도서의 상세 정보) and identifies the lookup key (ISBN). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as search_books or get_book_usage_analysis.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over the many sibling book-related tools. The description implies 'use when you have an ISBN,' but it names no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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