abs_search

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: Bearer auth from ABS_API_TOKEN, self-hosted Audiobookshelf only, and the help-with-target mechanism. It does not explain what each action returns, pagination, or rate-limit behavior.

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 compact and mostly front-loaded, moving from scope to auth to environment to actions without filler. The opening 'covers the search toolset' is slightly imprecise but does not waste much space.

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 tool with five parameters, nested objects, and six actions, the description provides the essential auth/environment constraints and a discovery path via the help action. It does not explain what each action does or how to distinguish this tool from overlapping siblings, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting the right 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents action, body, query, params, and target. The description adds only one semantic detail beyond the schema: action=help with target describes that action's parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates the six actions (get_authors, get_books, get_chapters, get_covers, get_podcast, get_providers) and mentions the help action, so the resource scope is knowable. However, labeling this a 'search toolset' is misleading because the actions are all retrieval/get operations, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like abs_authors, abs_podcasts, or abs_items that appear to cover overlapping resources.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use abs_search versus sibling tools such as abs_authors or abs_podcasts, nor when to prefer one action over another. The auth and self-hosted constraints are prerequisites, not usage-selection guidance.

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