get_vibes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: featured filtering is on by default, pagination uses limit/offset, and the result shape includes vibes with nested book data. It does not cover auth or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then read-only status, filtering/pagination, return shape, and alternatives. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return object and the fields included per vibe. Combined with full schema coverage and safety annotations, it gives the agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the four parameters are already documented with defaults and limits. The description reinforces featured filtering and pagination, but it mostly restates what the schema provides rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List Hardcover vibes'. It immediately defines vibes as curated, themed book recommendation collections and includes an example, so the agent can distinguish this from sibling list-related tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use alternatives: get_trending_books for popularity rankings and get_list for user-made lists. It also explains the featured-vibes default and pagination behavior, leaving little ambiguity about scope.

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