aladin_book_collect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose core behavior: bulk collection, deduplication, optional ItemLookUp details, and that files are only saved when export_dir is set. However, it does not describe what the tool returns, how it handles errors or rate limits, whether files are overwritten, or what happens when export_dir is null beyond not saving.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the tool's overall function, followed by a compact parameter list where every entry adds meaning. There is no filler or redundant narrative, and the structure is easy for an agent to scan.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers parameters and the main workflow well. Still, it omits what the tool returns to the caller, overwrite or append behavior for exported files, and any API-side considerations such as rate limits or required credentials, leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded.

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 coverage is 0%, but the Args section compensates fully by explaining all 8 parameters with concrete examples and defaults, including the meaning of opt_lookup and the conditional behavior of export_dir. This is substantially more useful than the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 begins with a specific, multi-part behavior: collecting books across multiple search terms, deduplicating results, and exporting to xlsx/csv/json/sqlite. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search/lookup/status/list tools, which are single-query or detail-oriented rather than bulk export operations.

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 makes the intended use case clear: bulk collection across multiple terms with deduplication and file export. It does not explicitly state when to prefer aladin_book_search or aladin_book_lookup instead, but the batch-and-export framing gives an agent enough context to infer the right situation.

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