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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are ordered newest first and enumerate change kinds, summaries, sections, and examples. It does not discuss permissions or limits, but with annotations that is acceptable.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the return scope and then the key optional parameter guidance. No redundant restatement of annotations or schema.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and the description explains ordering and since_edition. However, to_edition is undocumented and there is no sibling routing, leaving a gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains since_edition well with an example, but leaves to_edition completely undefined and only implicitly covers book.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: changes in a book's editions, newest first, including dates, change kinds, summaries, sections, and examples. The edition-change focus is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_contents or get_section.

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?

Provides concrete guidance for since_edition, including a reader-copy example, which implies using it to track changes after a known edition. It does not say when to choose this over get_contents/get_section or when not to use it.

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