book_content_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and handles it well. It discloses branch-dependent return behavior (TOC, subsection names, leaf text, subsection text), not-found error behavior with available names, and case-insensitive substring matching. The read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Get content' and the navigation model.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then uses a compact numbered list to explain each drill-down level. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes conditional behavior easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 no output schema and no annotations, this description is effectively complete for invocation: it tells the agent what to pass, in what combinations, what responses to expect at each level, and what happens on not-found. It covers both book and adventure content; a pointer to list_sources for valid abbreviations would be a minor enhancement, not a real gap.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful navigation semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies the relationship between section and subsection, explains what omission produces, and defines leaf behavior. It does not add detail about the ruleset parameter, but the schema already documents that fully.

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 ('Get content'), a specific resource ('D&D 5e sourcebook or adventure'), and a clear addressing mechanism (source abbreviation). The drill-down navigation model further distinguishes this tool from metadata/search siblings like book_get, book_search, and funnctionally related content 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 numbered list provides explicit conditional usage guidance: omit section for TOC, provide section only for subsection names or leaf text, and provide section+subsection for a specific rendered subsection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases relative to siblings such as fetch_content or book_get, so it falls short of a 5.

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