get_books_read_between

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It discloses filtering by Read status and finish date, plus the 'most-recent first' ordering. It does not mention response shape, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, but for a simple list operation this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 sentence that states the action, the resource, the filtering criterion, and the ordering. There is no filler, and important selection details are front-loaded.

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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the main filtering logic and ordering but omits clarifying exclusions or sibling-tool distinctions. Overall this is adequate but not complete enough to guarantee ideal tool selection among closely related library/reading tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the meaning of since, until, user_id, limit, and offset. The description adds beta ordering and the date filter context, but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 an explicit verb and resource: 'List books marked as Read with a finish date between two dates.' It clearly identifies the filtering condition and the sort order. This makes the tool distinguishable from siblings like get_library_by_status, whose main criterion is status rather than finish-date range.

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 conveys an implied usage: use this tool when you want a date-bounded list of a user's finished books. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what sibling tools to prefer in closely related cases such as get_library_by_status or get_my_reading_journal.

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