Get a book's annotations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that results are ordered by chapters, enumerates returned fields (highlighted text, note, chapterTitle/chapterIndex), and warns about the chapterIndex numbering mismatch. This goes beyond a generic 'returns annotations' statement, though it omits details about errors or pagination which are less critical for this simple read operation.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the primary action and then add essential context about the output fields and the important chapterIndex caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is returned, the ordering, the included fields, and resolves a potential integration pitfall with chapter numbering. It sufficiently equips an agent to use the tool and interpret the response without ambiguity.

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 already fully documents bookId as 'The book's id (from search_books)', giving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'by bookId' restates the parameter's role without adding new semantic meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 user's own annotations (highlights and notes) for one book by bookId', specifying the exact verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_annotations (which likely lists all annotations) and list_annotated_books (which lists books), making its singular focus on one book explicit.

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 provides clear context by mentioning ordering 'by the book's chapters' and includes a pragmatic note about chapterIndex differing from list_chapters/get_chapter, guiding the user on how to correlate annotations with chapter text. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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