book_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool waits for search to finish or timeout and that multi-source search can be slow. This gives insight into the tool's behavior. No contradictions detected.

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 sentences plus an Args list. The first sentence states the purpose immediately, and the Args list is clearly formatted. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool has only two parameters and no nested objects. The description covers key behavioral aspects (wait, timeout, multi-source slowness). It is fully adequate for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'key' as 'The search keyword (title or author)' and 'timeout_seconds' as 'Maximum time to wait (multi-source search can be slow).' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare names, though 'key' could be more precise about matching semantics.

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 'Search for books across all enabled sources and return sorted results,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like book_add_local, book_delete, etc., all of which are CRUD operations on individual 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?

The description explains that the tool waits for completion or timeout and notes that multi-source search can be slow. This provides context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the sibling tools are mostly non-search operations, the usage is clear enough.

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