get_book_adv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about authentication against the Naver API, pagination, rate limits, or the shape of results. A caller learns only that some book data comes back.

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 single sentence is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it omits information an agent needs and spends its one clause on an unhelpful provenance note.

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?

With six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity. Nothing about result counts, paging, or field meanings is recoverable.

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 0% and six parameters need explanation, especially the opaque d_isbn, d_titl, and sort codes (default 'sim') plus start/display paging semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the bare parameter names.

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 verb and resource ('Get book information from Naver'), so the basic intent is readable. But it never explains what 'adv' means or how this differs from the sibling search_book, leaving the agent unable to tell the two book tools apart.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus search_book, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The only hint is the vague 'from Naver', which implies an external API but not a usage rule.

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