search_audiobooks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the basic search action and target fields, but does not mention return format, pagination, filtering behavior, or whether authentication or side effects are involved. Some behavior is self-evident from the name, but meaningful gaps remain.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place and the key scoping details come early.

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?

The tool is simple and parameters are fully documented, but with no output schema the description does not explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of results or item identifiers). This is a notable gap, though the search semantics make the likely outcome inferable. Overall adequate but not fully complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's 'by title, author, or narrator' merely echoes the search_by enum already present in the schema, adding no substantive meaning. It does not clarify query syntax or the default general search behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 clearly states the action ('Search'), the resource ('audiobooks on Audible'), and the search dimensions ('by title, author, or narrator'). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools, which focus on details, library, wishlist, and credits rather than searching.

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?

The description implies usage when the user needs to find audiobooks by metadata fields, while siblings cover details or collection actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when an alternative would be better, so it falls short of a 5.

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