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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral specifics about what is listed (publishers, languages, formats, print runs) and the exact return fields, which enriches the agent's expectation without contradicting 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields, the second adds a concise usage pointer. Everything earns its place and is highly scannable.

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?

With full schema coverage, clear safety annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It omits only marginal details like explicit pagination behavior, but limit/offset schema descriptions cover that adequately.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage; limit, offset, and work_id all have descriptions including defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline for full schema coverage 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('editions of a work'), and enumerates the returned data (ISBNs, publisher, language, page count, edition OLIDs). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like openlibrary_get_edition (singular) and ties into the workflow with 'Use after openlibrary_get_work or openlibrary_search_books'.

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?

Explicitly gives when to use: 'Use after openlibrary_get_work or openlibrary_search_books to find a specific printing.' This places the tool in a sequence and implies it is not for getting a single edition or searching, providing clear context against sibling tools.

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