similar_books

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

With no annotations, the description discloses output fields (book_id, title, author, rating, url) and a behavioral constraint ('limit capped at 40'), which adds transparency beyond the schema.

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?

Extremely concise: three short sentences front-load the purpose, include key behavioral details, and avoid any unnecessary text.

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 recommendation tool with output schema existing, the description covers purpose, output fields, chaining opportunities, and a constraint; could mention sorting or pagination but is sufficient for usage.

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 0%, so description must compensate; it indirectly explains limit with 'capped at 40' and implies book_id is 'the given one', but does not detail book_id format or limit defaults beyond 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 'books similar to the given one' and references Goodreads' recommendation graph, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_books or author_books.

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?

Provides context that the recommendation is 'hard to reproduce with web search' and notes that results can be chained into get_book or get_reviews, offering implicit guidance on when to use; lacks explicit when-not usage.

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