search_books

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions the search source (Open Library) and parameters, but omits details about rate limits, authentication, pagination, or return format. The output schema (present but not shown) may partially compensate, but the description lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with an argument list. Every word is purposeful, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately clarifies parameters.

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 simple search tool, the description covers parameters and source. However, it lacks information about output structure (though output schema exists), error handling, and potential limits. Given the output schema is present, the description's brevity is partially justified, but behavioral aspects are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the query parameter as 'Title, author, or free-text search' and max_results as 'Max books to return (default 20)'. This meaningfully supplements the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 that the tool searches books via Open Library, specifying searchable fields (title, author, year, editions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_github or search_amazon, which are for other domains.

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 for book searches via Open Library, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives. However, given sibling tools cover other search contexts, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for book queries.

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