Search Novels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is transparent, but the description does not mention pagination of results or output format. The output schema covers return shape, and the page parameter is described in the schema, so this does not significantly harm usability.

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 wasted words. It states the action, target, and criteria in a clear order, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any relationship to sibling tools, particularly get_novel_by_name, which appears to overlap in purpose. An agent cannot tell whether this search returns partial matches or whether get_novel_by_name is for exact names, leaving a gap in contextual completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds a small clarification that 'query' can be a title or a keyword, reinforcing the schema's example, but it does not add meaning to the 'page' parameter beyond the existing schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('web novels') and the filter criteria ('title or keyword'). It clearly states the core function and distinguishes from content-retrieval tools like read_chapter, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_novel_by_name.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that get_novel_by_name might be more appropriate for exact-name lookups, nor any conditions such as exact matching. An agent must infer the use case from the tool name and schema alone.

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