openlibrary_search

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search books on Open Library', revealing no behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only (likely), if rate limits apply, or what the response structure is. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise (one short sentence) with no wasted words. However, this brevity comes at the expense of completeness, making it feel under-specified rather than elegantly compact.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with no descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the search returns, how pagination works, or any constraints. A complete description would need to address these 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?

The description adds zero meaningful information about the three parameters (q, limit, page). Given that the schema has 0% description coverage, the description should at minimum explain that 'q' is the search query. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess parameter purposes.

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 'Search books on Open Library' clearly states the tool's function (search) and resource (books on Open Library). It is specific enough to differentiate from other Open Library tools like openlibrary_get_book or openlibrary_trending, though it could be more explicit about the type of search (e.g., by title, author).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openlibrary_author_works or openlibrary_get_book. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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