search_books

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search' and gives no information about pagination, sorting, exact match behavior, result format, or any side effects. For a tool with 10 parameters that imply behavior (sort, order, exactMatch), this is a critical omission.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters and a large sibling set. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential context that would help an agent use it correctly. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, the description provides almost no context. An agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and infer usage from parameter names, which is insufficient for a complex search tool. The description fails to convey the tool's purpose in context.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptive Korean labels for all 10 parameters (e.g., '정렬필드', '일치검색여부'), so the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given full coverage, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action ('search') and resource ('library collection books'), which identifies the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_items or search_popular_books, leaving the specific scope ambiguous. A more specific verb or object scope would distinguish it.

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 the many sibling search tools (e.g., search_popular_books, search_items, get_book_detail). No context is given for selecting this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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