openlibrary_author_works

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention data format, pagination, rate limits, or what 'works' includes (books, editions, etc.). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, but lacks necessary detail. It is not well-structured; minimal content earns a middle score.

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 output schema and sibling tools, the description fails to specify return values or how results are structured. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably use.

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%. The description does not explain the parameters (author_id, limit) beyond what the schema provides. The agent has no context on how to use them correctly.

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 tool retrieves works by an author from Open Library. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('works by an author'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like openlibrary_get_author (gets author details) and openlibrary_search (general 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like openlibrary_search or openlibrary_trending. No context provided about prerequisites or limitations.

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