List the editions of a work

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that digitised editions carry a link that is never opened by the server, so no guarantee is given about readability or reuse. It also reveals that rows are ordered by catalogue address rather than date or importance, which is non-obvious behavior.

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 compact three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then efficiently details the row contents and important caveats without redundancy.

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 list-with-pagination tool, the description covers purpose, output fields, digitisation caveat, ordering, and identifier provenance. The existing annotations and output schema cover the remaining safety and return structure details, making it contextually complete.

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 description clarifies that work_id is an identifier returned by search_works or get_work, giving it meaningful context beyond its schema description. However, page and limit are not mentioned in the description, leaving their semantics only in the schema; given the low schema coverage (33%), this is a gap.

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 a specific action: 'List the published editions of one work' in the BnF catalogue, and specifies the input identifier from search_works or get_work. This differentiates it from sibling tools that list or search for works.

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?

It signals that the tool is appropriate when you already have a work identifier from search_works or get_work, and it describes what is returned. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives like find_digitised for digitised copies, so it has clear context but no exclusions.

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