List the editions of a work

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses that digitised links are not verified for readability/completeness/reuse, and that row ordering follows the catalogue order, not date or importance. These are meaningful caveats not captured in structured data.

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 information-dense yet concise: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by details on row contents, digitised link caveats, and ordering. Every sentence adds value with no repetition.

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 thoroughly covers row fields, digitised link behavior, and ordering. The presence of an output schema and annotations means it need not explain return structures or safety, leaving no critical information missing.

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 adds context for work_id by noting it is returned by search_works or get_work, but it does not explain the page or limit parameters. With schema coverage at only 33%, the pagination parameters remain undocumented, creating a clear 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 the tool lists published editions of one work, using an identifier from search_works or get_work. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on editions rather than authors, works, or digitised items.

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 explains that the work_id comes from search_works or get_work, providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using find_digitised for digitised-only searches.

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