outline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output is 'structure without body text' and the scope variants (entire book or under an address). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first states the core action and scope, the second gives a directive. There is no filler or redundancy. Every sentence carries purpose, and the key usage hint is front-loaded. This is an optimal structure for quick comprehension.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite incomplete. It covers the overall purpose and when to use, but provides no information about how to configure depth, scope, response_format, max_chars, or what 'kind' means. Since the schema is not self-explanatory (variable types and defaults), the tool definition is missing essential details for correct invocation. The annotations help, but they don't fill in parameter semantics. A more complete description would at least hint at how parameters affect the output.

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 for the lack of parameter explanations. The description does not mention any of the five parameters (kind, depth, scope, max_chars, response_format) or their meanings. An agent looking at the schema alone would see defaults and enums but not what they control. The description provides zero parameter semantics, forcing the agent to guess. This is a critical gap.

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 clearly states the tool returns the structure of a book or a section under an address, without body text. It mentions the scope ('entire book or under one address') and the content ('structure without body'), which makes the purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find' or 'get', but the phrase 'first step of broad exploration' gives a hint that this is for high-level navigation.

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 includes an explicit usage directive: 'Always use as the first step of broad exploration.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or suggest any alternative tools, so it lacks exclusionary guidance. Still, it gives a solid usage context, scoring a 4.

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