Read a work's record

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the meaning of 'status' and 'status_statement', the instability of provisional identifiers, and the distinction between expression_count and published editions. These details are not inferable from annotations and are highly valuable.

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 longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence contributes meaningful information about output fields, caveats, or alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense without fluff, though slightly verbose in the enumeration of record fields.

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?

The description is complete for a read tool with an output schema: it explains the key return values (title, credits, status, expression_count), warns about provisional identifier instability, and provides a cross-reference to list_editions for edition counts. The output schema covers technical return structure, so the description adds the necessary behavioral and semantic 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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters with thorough descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already contains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one work's record'), and clearly scopes the tool to a single record retrieved via 'the identifier search_works returns.' It differentiates from siblings by naming search_works as the source and explicitly pointing to list_editions for edition counts, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use the tool (when you have a work identifier from search_works) and explicitly directs users away from this tool for edition counts ('use list_editions for those'). It also advises preferring established identifiers over provisional ones, providing clear selection guidance.

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