Get collection

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

The description correctly aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it 'Fetches' data. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: that books are returned 'in order' and the compact/full projection distinction. No contradictions exist.

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 short (10 words) and front-loaded with action and resource. It is slightly terse but every word is meaningful; however, it could explicitly state the ordering guarantee more clearly if space permits.

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 read-only retrieval tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It states what the tool returns (a collection with books in order) and gives a hint about projections via the 'detail' parameter. It does not describe pagination, error cases, or what happens if the collection ID is invalid, but these are not expected given the tool's simplicity and the schema already covers parameters completely.

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% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds value by noting that books are returned 'in order' (not stated in schema) and reinforces that collection_id is returned by list_collections. The 'detail' parameter's enum choices are well explained in the schema, and the description adds context about usage ('matters for browsing' vs 'very large').

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 specifies a precise verb ('fetches') and resource ('one collection'), and uniquely identifies the output includes ordered books. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_collections' (which lists all collections without book details) and 'get_series' (which fetches a series, not a collection).

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 a read-only retrieval context, and the enum 'detail' parameter provides separate compact/full modes to suit different needs. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it (e.g., for listing all collections use 'list_collections', or for modifying collections use siblings like 'update_collection').

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