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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the result set is paginated. It says nothing about page size, total counts, or result ordering, so the added value is modest.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but it is arguably too thin for a 2-parameter tool and reads as an abbreviated label rather than a front-loaded explanation. There is no wasted text, yet no sentence does real work.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving the description minimally adequate. It still leaves ambiguous what a 'work' is (books only? editions? articles?), which an agent would need to resolve before calling.

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 both parameters (id, page) are documented in the schema, including the 1-based default for page. The description only echoes the pagination concept and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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 names the resource ('author works') and the operation (list), and notes pagination, so an agent can infer it returns an author's body of work. However, it is a terse fragment rather than a specific verb+resource statement and does nothing to differentiate it from siblings like goodreads_author, goodreads_author_quotes, or goodreads_book.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. obtain the author id via goodreads_search or goodreads_author first), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer the entire invocation context from the name alone.

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