gutenberg_book

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' but says nothing about whether the ID format is strict, what happens for an unknown ID, or what fields the details include. For a bare public API lookup this is a real but modest gap.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though being a single sentence it cannot front-load much beyond the verb and resource.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves the return shape ('details' is vague) and the distinction from gutendex_book unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Numeric book ID from Project Gutenberg'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 when coverage is high.

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 specific verb (Get) and resource (details for a Project Gutenberg book) with the identifier keyed by ID. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling gutendex_book (or gutenberg_search), leaving ambiguity about which of the near-identical book-lookup tools to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance: it never says to use this after gutenberg_search to fetch a specific work, nor how it differs from gutendex_book or gutendex_search. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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