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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these by clarifying what is returned (bibliographic record and, conditionally, a thesis) and flagging that not every work is profiled. This conditional return behavior is not captured in the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 getter with one parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the core behavior and conditional thesis handling are adequately conveyed.

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%, with libraryId already documented as 'Library catalog id (e.g. libce6efaa49e6f0175).' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 resource ('one writing-craft library work's bibliographic record and (when profiled) its thesis'), making the tool's function precise. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings get_guide, get_magazine_piece, and search_library by naming the unique content type it targets.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular resource and required libraryId parameter, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. There is no statement like 'use search_library instead when you don't have an ID' or 'use get_guide for guides.'

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