get_popular_books_by_library

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 disclosing behavior. It only states the action (retrieve) without mentioning whether it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what data is returned. For a query tool, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and there is no disclosure of output structure or potential limitations.

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 very concise (one sentence), which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It provides the core purpose but lacks details that would help an agent understand usage nuances. For a simple tool this might be acceptable, but it does not include any guidance or context that would add value, so it is not as helpful as it could be.

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 low complexity (one parameter, well-documented schema), the description is minimal. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of books with details). Without this, an agent cannot fully anticipate the result. The description also fails to mention any pagination, sorting, or limits. For a complete tool definition, more context is needed.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'libCode' with a pattern and a description that instructs the user to use 'search_library_codes' tool to find the code. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the format or semantics beyond what is already provided.

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 retrieves popular loan books by library ('도서관별 인기대출도서를 조회합니다'). It identifies the resource (popular loan books) and the scoping (by library). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_popular_books_by_library', which likely performs a similar function, so it lacks sibling discrimination.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling named 'search_popular_books_by_library' that may be similar or have different parameters, but the description does not mention it or any conditions for selection. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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