Get related books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful context by clarifying that 'same_series' results include the series index and by describing the three relation kinds. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases, result ordering, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes value, and the format is easily scannable.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description does not explicitly state the return shape, but the phrase 'Find books related' implies a list. The tool's simplicity and clear parameter guidance make it adequately complete for invocation, though it could mention output format for full clarity.

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 covers both parameters 100%, but the description enriches the enum values with meaningful explanations (e.g., 'similar' recommendations, 'same_series' with series index, 'same_author'). It also reinforces that bookId comes from search_books, adding context beyond the schema.

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 it finds books related to a given book by bookId, with three explicit relation types (similar, same_series, same_author). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating these relation modes and specifying the use case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 suggest what to read next or to explore a series/author') which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of the highest bar for exclusionary guidance.

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