Read the editions of a work

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

Even though annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: no score files are downloaded or linked, empty section restrictions return available sections, copyright must be reported by jurisdiction, and attribution is required. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 average but every sentence contributes practical guidance for a tool with five parameters and several edge cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves through addressing, pagination, sections, copyright, and attribution in a logical order.

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 tool with this complexity, the description covers all essential calling details: how to identify the work, pagination semantics, section restrictions, empty-result behavior, copyright caveats, and linking requirements. An output schema exists and supplies return structure, so the description does not need to restate return fields.

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 each parameter. The description adds real semantic value by defining what an edition is, explaining that editions_on_page bounds pagination, clarifying section value wording, and describing the empty-section fallback. It does not merely repeat the schema.

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 action and resource: reading the scores and recordings a work on IMSLP holds, edition by edition. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_works, get_work, and list_person_works by focusing on editions and files rather than work metadata or person-level listings.

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 gives concrete usage context: address the work by title or page id, paginate with limit and offset, and restrict by section using page-printed names. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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