get_book_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key constraints: 1-based chapter numbering, maximum of 3 chapters and 25 paragraphs per chapter per call. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination behavior for the 'page' parameter.

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 concise sentences provide all key information without filler. The most important action ('Get a bounded, paginated slice') is front-loaded, and constraints are clearly listed.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not fully complete. It explains return caps but omits output format, pagination logic for 'page', the role of 'langwritten', and does not clarify what happens when constraints are exceeded.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that chapter numbers are 1-based and that 'chapter_range' is limited to 3 entries. It also ties 'page_size' and 'paragraph_range' to the return limits (max 25 paragraphs per chapter). Schema coverage is 63%, so the description partially compensates for undocumented parameters like 'page' and 'format'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a bounded, paginated slice of a publication.' It specifies verb ('Get'), resource ('slice of a publication'), and adds constraints (max 3 chapters, 25 paragraphs per chapter) that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_publication_toc' which provides TOC structure.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_publication_toc' or 'get_article_full'. The description does not mention context, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.

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