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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the bibliography deliberately includes critical and skeptical sources and that every record carries classification fields (source_family, stance, relation_to_wheel). This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits behavior when both id and query are provided or when no parameters are supplied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the general purpose, then details the two usage modes. Every sentence contributes value with no redundant or filler language.

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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers the return record fields (description, author, publish date, licensing, link) and the classification fields, making it fairly complete. The only notable gap is the behavior when multiple parameters are used together or when none are passed.

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 schema already has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining that id retrieves a full source record while query searches across title/family/stance. It also lists the contents of a full record, enriching the parameter-level descriptions from 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 states a specific verb 'Look up' with a distinct resource 'Wheel of Heaven bibliography (source program)'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on the source program/bibliography, and outlines two modes: id lookup and query search.

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 explicitly explains when to use each mode: pass id for a full record, pass query to search by title/family/stance. It provides context about the record classification and the deliberate inclusion of critical sources, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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