search_books

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 adds useful behavioral context by specifying that search spans all book content and that results include line context, which goes beyond the bare operation name. However, it does not disclose behavior around result limits, ordering, matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy, case sensitivity), or what happens with no matches — gaps that matter for a search tool.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the first states the action and scope, the second states the return value. For a single-parameter tool, the description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 low-complexity single-parameter tool, the description covers the core semantics: what it does, the scope of the search, and the shape of the result. Because an output schema exists, the return values need not be fully enumerated in prose. The only notable omissions are behavioral details like result limits and match semantics, which are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'query' parameter. It implicitly defines the parameter by situating it within 'full-text search across all book content,' which is enough to infer that query is the search text. It does not, however, clarify accepted formats such as phrases, multiple terms, or search operators, so the parameter meaning is adequate but not fully specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('full-text search') with a precise resource ('all book content') and states the return shape ('slug + line context'). The operation is self-evidently distinct from every sibling, none of which perform content search — list_books, metadata, summaries, and notes are all retrieval or aggregation rather than full-text search.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to find text within book content rather than list or inspect books. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no explicit contrast with siblings such as 'use list_books to enumerate available titles instead,' leaving the routing decision to inference.

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