gutendex_book

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state the response shape, whether the resource is public/unauthenticated, or what happens when the ID does not exist. Only the read-only nature is weakly implied by 'Get'.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only prose an agent gets, and it omits return-value content and ID format. For a trivial single-parameter lookup this is minimally adequate but leaves real 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% ('Gutenberg book ID'), so the schema already defines the single parameter; the description merely rephrases it as 'Project Gutenberg book ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there is no meaningful semantic addition such as numeric vs string format expectations.

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), resource (Project Gutenberg book) and lookup key (by ID), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the near-identical sibling gutenberg_book, nor does it point at gutendex_search for the non-ID path.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus gutendex_search (search by title/author) or the similarly named gutenberg_book, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The only implied guidance is that you must already have an ID.

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