search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool queries Typesense and returns 'rich result objects', which is useful, but it does not explain whether results vary by query_type, how pagination behaves, sorting/relevance, or that this is a read-only operation. Some transparency is provided, 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. Front-loads the purpose, lists the range of searchable entities, and adds the Typesense behavior efficiently.

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 the rich schema coverage and moderate complexity of searching across multiple entity types, the description covers invocation basics and result source. It could name the sibling lookup tools as alternatives or clarify output differences across query types, but overall it is sufficiently complete for selecting and calling the 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 parameters are already fully documented. The description only restates that query_type defaults to 'book', which duplicates the schema and adds no extra meaning about parameter behavior or constraints.

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 states a specific action ('Search') with a specific resource ('Hardcover') and enumerates all searchable entity types. It is clearly distinguished from the get_* sibling tools, which support direct lookups by ID or slug rather than free-text search.

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 gives clear context for the search use case and defaults query_type to book, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over a get_* tool, such as 'use get_book_by_slug if you already have a known identifier'. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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