aladin_book_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses '조회합니다' (queries), implying a read-only operation with no side effects, and it documents pagination limits (start 1~100, max_results 1~100). However, it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or response format. It provides some useful behavioral constraints but is 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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose statement front-loads the core function, followed by a compact 'Args' block that spends each line on a parameter with its allowed values or range. There is no fluff, repetition of schema defaults, or irrelevant detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters very well but omits return-value behavior and usage guidance. An agent knows what to pass, but not what the response contains or how to decide between this and aladin_book_search/lookup. Given the lack of an output schema, a note about the return structure would materially improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. The 'Args' section explains each of the 5 parameters: query_type lists the five allowed values, search_target lists the seven categories, start and max_results give ranges, and category_id is marked as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, which lacks enums, ranges, and descriptions.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: '알라딘 베스트셀러, 신간, 추천도서 등 큐레이션 리스트를 조회합니다' (queries curated lists such as bestsellers, new arrivals, and recommended books). This states a specific retrieval action and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, so it falls short of full differentiation, but the focus on curated lists is distinct from search, lookup, status, and collect.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not mention 'use this for list queries' or 'use search instead for keyword queries.' The only implied usage is from the purpose sentence, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing. An agent must infer selection solely from the tool name and examples, which is not sufficient.

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