Search Open Library

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that read/borrow links are included when a scan exists, but does not mention response format, pagination, or side effects. The read-only nature is not explicitly stated, though it is implied by 'search'. More detail on what is returned (e.g., full metadata) would improve transparency.

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 a single clear sentence that efficiently conveys the primary action and distinguishing features. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

While the schema covers all required parameters and the description gives a good overview, there is no information about the structure of results, sorting, pagination, or error cases. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail on return format would enhance completeness. However, for a simple search tool it is minimally adequate.

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?

All three parameters have complete descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that queries are for titles/keywords and author is optional. The description does not elaborate on parameter formatting or constraints beyond the schema.

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 searches for books on Open Library, and mentions its strength for modern editions and translations, which helps distinguish it from sibling search tools like search_gutenberg or search_internet_archive. However, it could be more explicit about the specific scope (e.g., books only) and how it differs from similar tools.

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 usage for searching modern editions and translations, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and there is no comparison with siblings such as search_gutenberg for public domain texts or search_internet_archive for archival materials.

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