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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the data boundary: only public supplier summary and the canonical URL are returned, with buyer, contact, price and inquiry data explicitly excluded. It does not cover error behavior for an invalid or unknown work_id, which is the remaining gap for an unannotated read 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, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then return contents, then the data exclusion. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the trigger and the shape of the return value plus its data boundaries. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to set expectations about the response.

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% and the single work_id parameter is documented with an example format ('wk_...') in the schema. The description only adds the trivial framing 'when the user supplies a work_id', so baseline 3 applies.

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_work') and immediately specifies the payload: the canonical work page URL and public supplier summary. It also names the sibling search_works, so an agent can distinguish lookup-by-id from discovery without opening either schema.

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?

Gives two clear trigger conditions: after search_works, or when the user supplies a work_id. The exclusion clause ('No buyer, contact, price or inquiry data') also signals that this tool is not the route for contact or pricing lookups. No explicit when-not statement, but the context is clear.

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