Open Library — Get edition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the OLID is invalid/not found, rate limits, or whether the response includes full metadata or a summary. For a fetch operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 concise sentence that includes a concrete example. Every word earns its place and the example is valuable. It's appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter fetch tool.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema that returns rich bibliographic data, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what data will be returned, the relationship between editions and works (relevant given the sibling get_work tool), or how the tool fits into the broader book lookup workflow.

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 single parameter 'olid' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must explain it. The description does provide meaning via the example 'OL7058607M', which clarifies the expected format. However, it doesn't specify the full pattern (e.g., prefix rules, whether only M-suffix editions are valid) or edge cases.

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 'Fetch an edition by OLID (e.g., OL7058607M)' clearly states the verb (fetch), resource (edition), and identifier format with an example. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_work tool beyond the resource type name, and provides no context on what an edition represents relative to a work.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus get_work, search tools, or crossref/openalex alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not when to choose it. For an identifier-based fetch, a user could reasonably guess, but no explicit context is given.

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