search_books

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 documents the argument names and the 1-100 range for max_results, but says nothing about ranking/relevance behavior, pagination or truncation past 100 results, rate limits, or whether results are cached — all relevant for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 operative sentence is front-loaded and the parameter list is short and scannable. The Args:/Returns: block partially duplicates the schema and output schema, but at this length the redundancy costs little.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with an output schema already covering return shape, the description is adequate — though the explicit Returns block is partly wasted effort given the output schema exists. What is missing for full completeness is routing guidance against the six sibling search tools and any note on result ordering.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it marks query as required and adds a 1-100 bound plus the default for max_results that the bare schema does not express (the schema only carries default: 10, no maximum). It stops short of describing query syntax or what happens when max_results exceeds available matches.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Search for books") that an agent can immediately map to an intent. The book domain implicitly separates it from search_web/search_images, but the description never explicitly differentiates from siblings like search_everything, which could also return books.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent infers "use this when you want books." There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of search_everything for broad queries, and no note on when to prefer fetch_content for following result links.

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