Open Library — Search works/editions

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 mention that this is a read-only search operation, doesn't describe response format/returned fields, doesn't mention rate limits, API quirks, or that 'works by default' means editions require explicit specification. Since it's a search endpoint against an external API, behavior around defaults and result structure should be disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, highly compact and efficient. Every element earns its place by signaling the query surface area. The parenthetical '(works by default)' is valuable scope-setting. Minor issue is it's somewhat telegraphic—stacking features without explaining semantics—but it avoids redundancy well.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry substantial weight. It communicates the query modes and features at a high level but leaves key gaps: what fields are available, what sort options exist, whether there's pagination limits, what the response structure looks like, and how lang interacts with query parameters. For a search tool with this much surface area, the description is under-specified.

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%, and there are 8 undocumented parameters. The description mentions q/title/author, pagination, fields, sort, lang - which maps to the parameter names but adds minimal semantic value beyond what parameter names imply. It doesn't clarify that q is the general full-text query while title/author are field-specific filters, doesn't explain what 'fields' string format should be, or what sort values are valid. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate more but only partially does.

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 clearly states 'Search Open Library (works by default)' with a specific verb+resource. It mentions the tool searches works and editions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like books_openlibrary_get_work and get_edition which retrieve specific works rather than search. The default 'works' scope is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the search_across_all sibling tools that may also search this domain.

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 implicitly indicates this is for searching (as opposed to get_work/get_edition which retrieve specific items). It lists supported fields (q/title/author) and features (pagination, fields, sort, lang) which hints at usage contexts. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over books_google_search or scholarly_openalex_search_works, and no exclusions stated.

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