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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: server-side filtering by TRIPITAKA_ENABLED_LANGUAGES, the current indexing gap for Thai editions, and the fact that the list may be empty even if editions exist. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 organized with markdown headings and bullet points, front-loading the action in the first sentence. Each section (when, filtering, state, returns) earns its place, and the return field list is compact yet complete.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how filtering works, and the current state caveat. There are no gaps that would leave an agent 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed; the baseline of 4 applies per the rubric.

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: 'List the translation editions available, with coverage stats.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like compare_translations and get_sutta—it's about enumerating editions, not comparing or retrieving content. The return-field breakdown further sharpens the purpose.

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?

A dedicated 'Use this tool when' section explicitly lists two scenarios: before calling compare_translations or get_sutta(edition=...), and when the user asks which editions are loaded. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it stops short of naming explicit 'when not' cases or alternative tools beyond those indicated.

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