author_books

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it 'resolves the book's primary author', 'returns their works ranked by popularity', and 'limit capped at 40'. These are behavioral traits beyond the basic inputs and outputs.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details on resolution and ranking, then result fields and constraint. Every sentence 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 annotations and presence of output schema, the description covers input usage, resolution process, ranking, limit cap, and result fields. It lacks error handling details but is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that book_id is used to identify the author (via any of their books), and that limit is capped at 40. Although schema coverage is 0%, the description references both parameters.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'author's works (bibliography)', and explains the input (any of their books). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_book (single book) and search_books (general search) by focusing on author bibliography.

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 explicitly says 'given any of their books', indicating when to use this tool. It implies usage context (you have a book_id and want the author's other works) but does not directly mention when not to use or compare to all siblings.

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