list_books

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it specifies default ordering, strict limit validation ('refused, not clamped'), and the exact fields returned. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but core operational behavior is transparent.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: one purpose sentence followed by terse, high-density notes on ordering, limits, and return records. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3-parameter list tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, parameter semantics, and return shape sufficiently. Minor omissions such as pagination and invalid-folder behavior are not critical for correct invocation of this simple operation.

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 compensates by explaining allowed order values, the limit range and its refusal behavior, and the folder scope. It does not elaborate on folder_id formatting, but its meaning is reasonably clear from the purpose and 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('books') with a clear scope ('in one folder'), and describes the returned catalog fields. It does not explicitly reference or contrast sibling tools like search_books or get_book, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 clearly establishes the context—listing books within one folder—and documents order/limit options. However, it never directly says when to prefer this over search_books or get_book, nor provides exclusions or alternative routing.

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