Read a Project Gutenberg book

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

The description discloses truncation behavior via max_chars, which is useful. However, without annotations, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description carries the full burden but fails to cover common behavioral aspects.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the essential action. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'plain-text body' which is helpful. However, it lacks details on return format, error states, or pagination (if any). For a simple fetch tool, it is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that book_id is numeric and from search_gutenberg, and that max_chars controls truncation (default 15000). This provides more semantic context than the bare schema 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 clearly states the tool fetches plain-text body of a Project Gutenberg book by numeric id, and mentions id from search_gutenberg. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_fulltext or get_archive_text, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 implies that the id should come from search_gutenberg and that output is truncated to max_chars. It provides clear context but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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