search_books

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are per‑folder best matches, not alphabetically ordered, and that folder scoping is optional. It does not cover rate limits, authentication, or empty‑query behavior, but the output schema handles return structure, so a 4 is warranted.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front‑loaded, and the behavioral notes (folder scope and ordering) follow logically. Efficient and scannable.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain that. It explains the search fields, the folder‑scoping behavior, and the ordering. Missing pieces are the limit parameter's effect and any query syntax expectations (e.g., wildcards). For a straightforward search tool, this is largely complete, but the limit gap keeps it from a 5.

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 only implicitly explains folder_id ('Searches every folder when folder_id is omitted'). It says nothing about the query parameter's semantics (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity) or the limit parameter's role. Two of three parameters remain undocumented semantically.

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 ('Search') and resource ('titles, descriptions, series, contributors and tags'). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_books (which lists all) and get_book (which fetches a specific book).

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?

Provides clear context: omitting folder_id searches every folder, implying folder_id scopes the search. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_books) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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