classic-novels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields (publication year, subjects, page count, cover images, links) but doesn't discuss limitations, authentication, rate limits, or default behavior (e.g., max results from limit parameter). It adds context about the data source but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: first sentence states the core functionality and source, second sentence lists outputs and use cases. It is front-loaded, efficient, and 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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its applications. It covers the main parameters and results. However, it doesn't specify how parameters combine or the default behavior when no parameters are provided, which could be improved.

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% with all parameters described in the input schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only lists use cases without elaborating on parameter usage or combinations.

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 that the tool 'looks up classic and contemporary books by title, author, or ISBN via Open Library' and lists what it returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the niche (classic and contemporary books) and sources (Open Library, Project Gutenberg, Internet Archive), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar research tools.

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 mentions use cases ('research agents, reading recommendation workflows, literature analysis, and bibliographic data enrichment') which implies when to use, but it provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools like 'research-paper-search' or 'arxiv-intel'.

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