APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what data is returned (description, subjects, authors, cover, first publish date), which adds value. However, lacks operational details: no mention of error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response structure/pagination.

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?

Single efficient sentence with em-dash structure. Front-loaded with action and scope, followed by specific field enumeration. No filler words or redundant phrases. Every element earns its place.

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 simple 1-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for missing output schema by listing the specific fields returned. Could improve by noting error behavior (e.g., 'returns 404 for invalid IDs'), but adequate for complexity level.

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 has 100% description coverage ('Open Library Work ID, e.g. OL45804W...'), establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'by Open Library Work ID' which aligns with parameter semantics but doesn't add syntax details, validation rules, or format guidance beyond what's already in 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?

Specific verb ('Get') + resource ('consolidated work metadata') + scope ('across all editions by Open Library Work ID'). Explicitly lists returned fields (description, subjects, authors, cover, first publish date) and distinguishes from siblings like 'books.editions.isbn' (specific editions vs consolidated work) and 'books.catalog.search' (search vs ID lookup).

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?

No explicit 'when to use' or named alternatives. However, the specificity ('consolidated work metadata across all editions') implicitly guides selection over 'books.editions.isbn' for edition-agnostic data. Lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., 'obtain ID from search results' mentioned only in schema, not description).

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