get_banned_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the account-level behavior when book_id is omitted and the alerting use case. However, it does not state permissions, rate limits, read-only nature, or what the status result looks like.

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 two compact clauses with no wasted language, and the core purpose plus the key scope condition are front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter query this is mostly adequate, and the scope-switching behavior is explained. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what information the status query returns or how to interpret it, leaving a notable 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents book_id as an optional book ID. The description adds important semantics beyond the schema: omitting book_id switches the query to account-level scope. This is meaningful parameter guidance.

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 names the specific resource and query intent: violation/ban status. It clearly distinguishes this from the novel/chapter-management siblings by domain. It does not explicitly contrast with a named sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It gives an explicit conditional usage rule: omit book_id to query at the account level. It also states a concrete use case, automatic violation alerts. It does not describe exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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