Search books by title or author

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar for added context is met by real substance: case/accent/quote-dash-insensitive matching, the one-row-per-book output shape, and the paging footer behavior. This discloses matching semantics and return behavior that no annotation or schema field conveys.

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?

Purpose and matching behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, then output format, then the sibling pointer, then per-arg docs. Slight redundancy between the prose output note and the Args block, but with 0% schema coverage the Args section earns its 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return format (``[id] title by author``) and the paging footer. Combined with full parameter docs and the describe_book handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so completely: ``query`` semantics (matched against title or author), ``limit`` bounds and default (1–500, default 200), and ``offset`` meaning plus the footer hint that reveals the next offset. Every parameter gets meaning and constraints absent from the 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 states a specific verb and resource plus scope: books whose title OR author contains the query, with normalization rules spelled out. It implicitly separates itself from the title-only sibling, but never names ``search_books_by_title``, so an agent must infer which of the two overlapping search tools to pick.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance for the follow-up step ('Use ``describe_book(id)`` for details') and explains when paging applies (the footer names the next offset when there are more). What it lacks is an explicit when-not statement against the near-identical sibling ``search_books_by_title`` or the broader ``list_all_books``.

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