Get book details

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

With no annotations available, the description discloses the operation is a read (Get), the scope (one book by bookId), and the returned categories (metadata, files, formats, description/series). It does not elaborate on error conditions or authentication, but for a simple getter it provides reasonable behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences front-load the primary action and include specific use cases. No filler text; every word contributes.

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 is sufficiently complete for a one-parameter retrieval tool: it names the lookup key, the output categories, and two common use cases. While it doesn't specify the exact response object, the absence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity make this adequate.

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 with 'The book's id (from search_books).' The description repeats 'by bookId' but adds no new parameter semantics. As schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves full metadata for one book by bookId, listing specific content (files, formats). It distinguishes from siblings like search_books (search) and search_in_book (content search) by focusing on single-book metadata retrieval.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use to confirm an EPUB is available and to read the description/series info.' It implies this tool is for existing known book IDs, but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_books. It offers clear context for when to invoke it.

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