openlibrary_get_edition

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not confirm safety, idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects. No annotations are present to supplement this, so the description bears full responsibility and falls short.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and object.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core functionality but omits result format, error handling, and potential variations (e.g., multiple editions).

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the `isbn` parameter is an ISBN. However, it does not elaborate on format (e.g., ISBN-10 or ISBN-13) or provide any constraints beyond required.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('book edition'), the source ('Open Library'), and the input method ('by ISBN'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like openlibrary_search (search) and openlibrary_get_book (likely by different ID).

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 alternatives such as openlibrary_get_book or openlibrary_search. The description lacks context on preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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