Read a work's record

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by clarifying nuances: forms use a vocabulary with no labels, status indicates provisional vs established, and expression_count does not equal edition count. It also explains the default behavior of include_depictions (left out due to large payloads) and points to find_digitised for images alongside digitised editions.

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 dense but every sentence contributes either to scope, field semantics, or usage caveats. Some phrasing, like 'A record stating none has a form the catalogue does not state,' is awkward but not confusing. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then details.

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 rich schema and output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, its data semantics, and its relationship to sibling tools. It covers the main caveats (provisional IDs, form labels, edition count distinction) and is self-contained.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description reinforces the identifier's origin from search_works and adds guidance about preferring established identifiers, which supplements the schema's example. It does not discuss include_depictions separately since the schema covers it well.

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's purpose: 'Read one work's record in the Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue, by the identifier search_works returns.' It specifies the verb (read), resource (work's record), and source (BnF). It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly directing users to list_editions for edition counts.

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 explains that the identifier comes from search_works, implying a search-then-read workflow. It also warns that provisional identifiers are changeable and recommends citing established ones, and explicitly says to use list_editions for published edition counts instead of this tool.

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