get_book_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the EPUB is downloaded and parsed on each call, which implies network/processing cost and statelessness. It also explains the return behavior for both modes and the pagination continuation mechanism. It doesn't mention error cases or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-mode behavior is explained in a few lines, and the pagination detail is placed after the main use case. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 description covers the main behaviors, pagination, and the per-call parsing cost. It doesn't describe the output schema in detail, but an output schema exists, so that is acceptable. It could mention error conditions or the meaning of next_offset more explicitly, but for a read tool with a clear schema, it is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of chapter (null vs integer), offset, max_chars, and next_offset behavior. It doesn't explicitly define book_id, but that is self-evident from the tool name and schema. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 tool reads book text one chapter at a time, and distinguishes the no-chapter case (table of contents) from the with-chapter case (chapter text). It names the resource (book text) and the specific behavior (pagination via offset/max_chars), which differentiates it from siblings like get_book or search_books.

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 explains the two usage modes (without chapter vs with chapter) and how pagination works (max_chars, offset, next_offset). It doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings like get_book or list_books, but the chapter-by-chapter reading behavior is clear enough to imply the use case. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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