Open Library — Get work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state what happens on invalid/unknown OLIDs, whether the response includes metadata like author/title/publish year, whether rate limits apply, or any other behavioral traits. For a fetch tool with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

A single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action verb and includes a concrete example inline. Nothing extraneous.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description carries full responsibility, yet it's minimal. For a single-parameter fetch tool the core is simple, but it lacks information about return structure, error handling, or the distinction between work and edition—especially relevant given the sibling get_edition tool exists. The description would benefit from clarifying what a 'work' contains vs an edition.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The example (OL27448W) helps clarify the olid parameter format, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid OLID beyond the example, nor common error cases. Baseline for low coverage is low, and the example provides only marginal value.

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 clearly states 'Fetch a work by OLID' with a concrete verb+resource. It gives an example format (OL27448W) that clarifies what an OLID looks like. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_edition or get_work tools from other providers, but the resource and identifier example make the purpose clear.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. There's no mention of when to prefer this over books_openlibrary_get_edition, or when edition vs work is relevant. The agent must infer usage from the resource type name alone, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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