download_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what 'download' produces (files on disk, returned bytes, URLs), whether partial failures are tolerated, or any auth/rate-limit constraints. The only implied behavior is that it operates on multiple pages at once.

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?

A single four-word sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. Front-loading is fine; there simply isn't enough content for the agent to act on.

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?

With four parameters, three of them required, no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a 'download' yields and whether book is mandatory. Everything an agent needs beyond the page bounds and base URL is missing. The complete schema coverage of the surfaces it does touch keeps this from falling lower.

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 start, end, book and base_url are each documented in the schema, and the description's 'range of pages' only loosely echoes the inclusive start/end semantics already stated. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource pair ('Download a range of pages') is concrete, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling 'download_page', which an agent would naturally consider for the same resource. The word 'range' is the only hint at the difference and the agent must infer it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus 'download_page' or 'inspect_book'/'prepare_ocr', nor any prerequisites such as whether a book identifier is needed. Usage must be fully inferred from the tool name.

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