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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it says the work is public, lists the returned sections, and specifies that a missing work returns work: null.

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?

Two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the missing-work behavior stated immediately after. There is no wasted wording.

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 read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides enough: it identifies the resource, enumerates the returned content, and handles the null case. No output schema is needed because the return shape is described.

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 id parameter is already documented as a positive numeric ID from a search or list result. The description repeats the numeric-ID concept but adds no further syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource: read a public work, by numeric ID. The description also enumerates returned content, making it clearly distinct from list_works and search_poetry.

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 'numeric ID' and the schema note that the ID comes from a search or list result, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_poetry or list_works. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is given.

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