Read the works of a person

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, and the description adds valuable edge-case behavior: total is always null because IMSLP publishes no count, has_more/cursor control pagination, and an unknown category returns exactly the same empty response as a known empty one. This materially affects how an agent should interpret results.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers important edge cases concisely. A small amount of redundancy with the schema (prefix may be omitted) keeps it from being perfectly compact, but every sentence contributes.

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 tool with an output schema, it explains pagination, the null total, the empty-category ambiguity, and the attribution requirement. An agent has enough behavioral context to call it correctly and interpret results without guessing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents category, limit, and cursor. The description adds context that category comes from search_people and that cursor relates to has_more, but it largely repeats schema-level detail rather than adding new parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Read the works IMSLP files under a person', and expands scope to composer/editor/arranger/performer credits. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_works, get_person, and list_work_files.

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 states the tool is for listing works credited to a person and explains that the person must be addressed by a category, which 'search_people finds'. It gives clear identification context but does not explicitly name exclusions or alternate tools to use instead.

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