openlibrary_author_works

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning important details like pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'works' includes (e.g., editions, covers). This is insufficient.

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 immediately conveys the action with the verb 'Get' at the start. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the lack of an output schema and the 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining return format, common use cases, or edge cases. It does not, making it incomplete for an AI agent to understand all necessary context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. For example, it does not clarify the format of author_id (e.g., an Open Library ID) or the default limit value. The description adds no value over the raw 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'works by an author', which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like openlibrary_get_author (author info) and openlibrary_search (general search). The scope is precise.

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 implies usage when needing an author's works, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives like openlibrary_search or openlibrary_get_book, which could be more appropriate for specific queries.

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