search_libraries_by_book

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'searches', which implicitly suggests a read-only operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permission needs, pagination behavior, or possible errors. No meaningful behavioral expectations are set beyond the obvious read-only connotation.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It directly states the core purpose and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity. It is easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters including two required ones, yet the description provides no contextual guidance about required inputs, region dependence, or return expectations. There is no output schema, so the agent must infer what the search returns; the description does not bridge that gap.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description itself adds no semantic detail about the parameters; it does not even mention that the search is by ISBN or region, which are critical. This is a baseline 3 because the schema already documents everything, and the description adds negligible extra meaning.

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 specific verb ('검색합니다' - searches) and a resource ('도서를 소장한 도서관' - libraries that own a book), making its purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_libraries (which likely searches libraries without a book-specific lens) by specifying the 'by book' criterion.

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 such as search_nearby_libraries or search_libraries. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should prefer it over related tools. There is no when-not or alternative-routing information.

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