trove_get_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention auth requirements, whether a missing work errors or returns empty, or any response characteristics. It does not contradict annotations, but it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. The sparseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one, so it is not penalized heavily here.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description should at minimum explain what a "Trove work" is (versus a newspaper article) and what api_key is for. Neither is covered, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this correctly on the first try.

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 carries the full burden. "By ID" gives faint meaning to the required id, but the api_key parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving an agent to guess that it is a Trove API credential and whether it is 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?

States a clear verb and resource ("Get a specific Trove work") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which distinguishes it implicitly from trove_search and trove_newspaper_article. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the single-record vs search distinction.

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?

"By ID" implies the tool is for when an identifier is already known, which is useful routing signal, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus trove_search or trove_newspaper_article, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an API key or a prior search result).

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