What to read next

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that recommendations come from Iranketab's own engine and that quality scales with input size, which is real behavioral context. It does not disclose the shape or volume of the returned suggestions, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the input-quality hint immediately after. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical native-language name adds little for an agent selecting the tool.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the definition covers intent and input expectations adequately. The notable gap is that with no output schema, the agent is never told what a suggestion looks like (ids, titles, links) or that up to `limit` results are returned by default.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: the books are ones the reader 'liked', and three or more produce better results even though minItems is only 1. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Suggest books to read next') and names the source corpus (books the reader liked) plus the backing engine (Iranketab's recommender), which clearly separates it from siblings like ik_search or ik_browse. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool for contrast, but the recommendation intent is unambiguous.

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 sentence 'Works with one book; three or more give better results' gives useful input-shaping guidance about when the tool performs well. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over ik_search or ik_browse, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the books must be from Iranketab).

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