Books in progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-format detail ('[id] title by author' rows plus a progress summary) that the annotations do not provide. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination edge 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?

Three short lines, purpose front-loaded, then output shape, then args. No filler or restated title.

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 read-only filtered list with no output schema, the description supplies the filter semantics, the return row format, and both parameters' meaning. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain both parameters: limit with its 1–500 range and 200 default, and offset framed as paging. The schema only lists names and defaults, so this adds real meaning, though it omits what happens when offset exceeds the result count.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get books currently being read') and pins the scope precisely with the progress filter (>0% and <100%), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_finished_books, get_unstarted_books, and get_recently_read_books. It also previews the output shape.

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 inclusion criteria make the when-to-use condition clear: books with partial progress. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g. use get_finished_books for completed items) or states exclusions, so routing is inferred from the filter rather than stated.

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