get_library_by_status

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the primary behavior and the exact status meanings, but does not go beyond that: no return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or auth requirements are mentioned.

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 short, front-loaded sentents convey scope, filtering, and the full status mapping with no filler. Each part earns its place.

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 filtered lookup, the definition plus complete schema diagram is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The only noteworthy gaps are lack of an output description and pagination behavior, but these are minr for such a tool.

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 limit, offset, and status_value. The enrichment repeats the status enum mapping rather than adding new parameter semantics, which keeps this at the baseline.

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, resource, and scope: it retrieves the authenticated user's books and filters them by reading status. The status values are spelled out, making the operation unambiguous and easily distinguishable from broader library fetch tools.

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 descriptor makes clear this applies to the authenticated user's own books, which helps choose between this and user/social-lookup siblings. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_my_library or another tool, but the context is clear without stating exclusions.

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