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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'The recording relationships are returned in full (the work lookup does not page them),' which goes beyond the annotations. This helps the agent understand the return behavior.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the definition and then lists content. Every phrase adds value, with no filler. The list is long but compact, making it efficient if slightly dense.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and a detailed description, the tool is well-covered. The description covers the main return fields and the non-paging behavior. It could mention error handling or rate limits, but those are not specified and are likely covered elsewhere.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description repeats the list of included relationships but does not add new parameter-specific semantics. It clarifies the concept of a work but not the syntax or behavior of the parameters 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?

The description clearly states the tool gets a work by MBID, defining 'work' as a composition distinct from recordings. It lists specific fields returned (type, languages, ISWCs, relationships, aliases, tags, recordings), which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools for other entity 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 description gives clear context for use: fetch a work by its MBID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and definition imply the appropriate use case. A more explicit 'use this instead of X when...' would make it a 5.

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