get_vibes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that each vibe embeds its books (relevant to books_per_vibe), but it says nothing about read-only safety, rate limits, or pagination behavior. It adds some shape-of-result context beyond the schema without fully covering behavior.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the resource definition front-loaded so an agent grasps the tool in one pass.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly notes the return shape ('each vibe includes its books'). Combined with fully covered parameters, this is adequate for a simple read-only list tool, though it could say more about default featured filtering and result volume.

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 100%, so limit, offset, featured, and books_per_vibe are all already documented with defaults and maxes. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case; 'Each vibe includes its books' loosely relates to books_per_vibe but adds no syntax or 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?

States a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('Hardcover vibes'), and defines the domain term as curated, themed recommendation collections with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_list or get_trending_books, so it falls short of a 5, but the resource is 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as get_list or get_trending_books, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. Use is only implied by the 'List' verb; the agent must infer the browsing/recommendation context.

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