Get books in a collection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions pagination, optional filtering (q), and series collapsing, giving valuable behavior beyond the schema. The verb 'list' implies a non-mutating read operation, which is clear. It does not mention edge cases or response format, but for a straightforward list endpoint, this is sufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List the books in one collection by collectionId') and follows with key optional behaviors. Every phrase earns its place: the source of the ID, pagination, q filter, and collapseSeries. No unnecessary words.

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 simple list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it covers the core purpose, the required identifier's origin, pagination, and optional filters. It does not describe the return object structure, but since there is no output schema, that absence is acceptable. The completeness is only slightly limited by not noting default values (already in schema) or potential error conditions.

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 input schema already describes every parameter with 100% coverage, including that collectionId comes from list_collections and what collapseSeries does. The description text repeats these details ('from list_collections', 'collapse series into a single entry') without adding new semantic meaning. Thus, it does not add value beyond the structured schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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's function: 'List the books in one collection by collectionId', specifying the resource (books), the scope (one collection), and the identifier. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like list_collections (which lists collections) and search_books (which searches across all books). The mention of pagination and optional filters adds precise action details.

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 a clear usage context: it tells the agent that collectionId should come from list_collections, and it describes optional parameters (q and collapseSeries). This gives a sense of when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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