gutenberg_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint, so the safety and remote-call profile is covered. The description adds only that results are free ebooks and match on title/author; it doesn't state result limits, ranking, or pagination 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?

One short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Nothing is redundant for a tool this simple.

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 search the description covers the essentials, but with a dense cluster of near-named siblings and no output schema it should have clarified what results look like or how it differs from gutendex_search. Adequate but leaves a real selection ambiguity.

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 ('Search term (title or author)'), so the schema fully documents it. The description restates this same information rather than adding syntax such as multi-word handling or field targeting, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Search) and resource (Project Gutenberg free ebooks), with the searchable fields (title or author) named. It does not differentiate itself from the closely-named siblings gutendex_search, gutendex_book, and gutenberg_book, so an agent must infer the relationship.

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 and no mention of alternatives. Given three sibling tools that also deal with Gutenberg/Gutendex catalogue data, the agent is left to guess which one to call for a keyword lookup versus a book-detail fetch.

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