aladin_book_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('조회'), accepted identifier formats, and auto-detection of item_id_type. However, it does not describe return structure, error behavior, or the inconsistency between the schema default (ISBN13) and the claimed auto-detection.

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 concise and well-structured, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. There is no filler, though the auto-detection/default inconsistency and the cryptic opt_result value list prevent a perfect score.

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 straightforward lookup tool, it covers purpose, identifier types, optional results, and returned fields reasonably well. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks expected response shape, failure conditions, and a concrete example; the item_id_type ambiguity adds further uncertainty.

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%, so the Args section meaningfully compensates by explaining all three parameters: item_id formats, item_id_type values, and opt_result purpose with defaults. It does not expand on each opt_result value, but the default string is informative. The ISBN13 default versus auto-detection discrepancy reduces clarity slightly.

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 a specific action ('조회합니다') and resource ('특정 도서' identified by ISBN13 or 상품ID), and lists the returned attributes. It is distinguishable from search/list/status as an identifier-based single-item lookup, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have an ISBN or ItemId and need detailed information about a specific book. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it compares with siblings like aladin_book_search or aladin_book_status.

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