get_book

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it discloses the parsing method (embedded JSON vs DOM scraping), lists included data (ratings histogram, series/position, review-language breakdown) and excluded data (review text), and advises linking to the 'url' when citing details.

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 concise sentences, each adding value: purpose and input format, implementation detail and content scope, and citation guidance. No redundant information.

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 the output schema exists, the description adequately covers what to expect. It mentions key data included and explicitly excludes review text, directing to a sibling tool. It also provides citation advice, making it complete for an agent.

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 schema only provides a 'book_id' string parameter with no description. The description adds meaning by explaining it accepts numeric IDs or numeric-slug formats, which is essential for correct use.

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 'Get full details for a book by its Goodreads id', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_reviews by noting that it includes ratings histogram, series info, and review-language breakdown, but not review text.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get full details including ratings, series, etc.) and explicitly mentions an alternative (get_reviews for review text). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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