book_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral-disclosure burden. It states matching is by name and that a list is returned, which is useful, but it does not mention default ruleset behavior, official-vs-homebrew filtering, pagination limits, or any non-obvious search behavior. This is adequate but minimal for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences: the first states what the tool does and returns, and the second provides usage routing. Every clause earns its place, and the most important scope information is 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?

The description combined with a fully documented five-parameter schema covers the essential invocation decisions. It could be more explicit about output shape and default filtering, but those are either stated in the schema or inferable from the 'returns a list' statement. The omnisearch alternative also rounds out the decision 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by name' aligns with the query parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for limit, fields, ruleset, or include_homebrew. The schema does the necessary work here.

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 core operation is clear: search D&D 5e sourcebooks by name and get a list of matching entries. It identifies the resource and action well enough to distinguish book_search from the many entity-specific search siblings, though the phrase 'content type' is vague and could make an agent think it searches content entries rather than book records.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('when you know the content type') and provides an alternative ('if unsure of the type, use omnisearch instead'). It lacks detailed exclusions against the other specialized search tools, but the routing guidance to omnisearch is actionable and clear.

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