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

Annotations already signal a safe read operation, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: the thesis is only returned 'when profiled.' This usefully sets agent expectations about conditional response content beyond what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint convey.

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?

A single, focused sentence that leads with the action and object, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior and conditional return content. Nothing critical 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 100% and the parameter already has a clear description with an example. The tool-level description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('one parenting library work's bibliographic record'), and it implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_guide and get_magazine_piece by targeting generic library works rather than those specific piece types.

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 use case is implied: call this when you have a libraryId and need a single library work's record. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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