book_get

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

No annotation are provided, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior info—'Returns the complete entry with description merged in'—which clarifies the expected output. However, it does not say what happens when an exact name has no match, which is a relevant gap for a lookup tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it gets, what it returns, and when to prefer it over the sibling search. No filler or 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?

For a simple exact-name getter with full schema coverage, it is mostly complete: it describes the returned entry and distinguishes from book_search. The only notable omission is not-found or error behavior, which would be useful since no output schema exists.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description reinforces the 'exact name' requirement but does not add meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline score of 3.

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 verbplus resource: 'Get a specific D&D 5e sourcebook by exact name.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling book_search by saying to prefer this tool when an exact name is known, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Explicitly says 'Prefer this over book_search when you have an exact name,' which provides both the condition for using this tool and the alternative to fall back on. This is clear enough to route the agent correctly.

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