search_books_tool

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what is returned, not behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple search but not comprehensive.

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, 20 words. No fluff. Front-loaded with the action and key details.

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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), the description provides sufficient context for a search tool. Could mention that results include identifiers for further actions, but overall complete for basic use.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by naming the possible values for source (openlibrary, googlebooks). Does not elaborate on limit or query beyond 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?

Clearly states it searches for books using specific sources (openlibrary or googlebooks) and returns titles, authors, and year. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_papers and search_authors.

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?

Indicates the tool is for book searches via two sources. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other use cases, the sibling tool names make the context clear. Could mention when to prefer this over search_papers or search_libgen.

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