get_user_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately describes the tool as read-only (getting library books) and mentions filtering and sorting, but doesn't disclose pagination limits (default 25, max 100) or that it only returns the current user's library, which could be inferred but not explicit.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: stating the function, listing filters/sorts, and providing usage examples. No redundant information, well-structured.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality but omits details about the response format (e.g., fields returned, data types). The inclusion of pagination parameters suggests a need for output format guidance, which is lacking.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by providing example usage for sort/order and date range pairing, which goes beyond the schema definitions. The examples clarify how to use parameters together.

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 'Get books from your library' and specifies filtering (reading status, finished-date range) and sorting options, distinguishing it from siblings like search_books or get_book. The example usage further clarifies its purpose.

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 guidance on when to use filters (e.g., date range for 'what did I read in May last year?') and sorting (e.g., 'sort=rating, order=desc' for top-rated). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_books for broader searches.

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