Get books in a smart scope

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a listing (read) operation, is paginated, and supports a filter via q. It adds the cross-reference to list_smart_scopes as a prerequisite. However, it does not provide additional behavioral context such as error handling, ordering, or what 'smart scope' matching entails, leaving some ambiguity.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and includes essential details (scopeId source, pagination, optional filter). There is no wasted verbiage, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is sufficient for a user to invoke it correctly. It conveys the purpose, the source of the scopeId, and the pagination/filter options. It does not elaborate on the return format, but that is not critical for usage, and the reference to sibling tools helps contextualize it.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no new information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, except mentioning that scopeId comes from list_smart_scopes, which is already noted in the schema. This is a baseline score for a well-documented 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 the tool's purpose: 'List the books matched by one smart scope by scopeId'. The verb 'List' specifies the action, and the resource 'books' is clarified by the smart scope context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on smart scopes and referencing list_smart_scopes as the source for scopeId.

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: the tool is used to list books for a specific smart scope, with the scopeId obtained from list_smart_scopes. It also mentions the optional q filter, giving the user an idea of when to use this tool (when they have a scopeId). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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