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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat safety. The description adds valuable context: results are ordered newest first, include ids, and cost 1 credit per page, which helps the agent understand output ordering and rate/cost implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with two tight clauses—no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, ordering, identifier inclusion, search hint, and cost.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and a well-described schema, the description covers the key needs: what it returns, ordering, search via `q`, and credit cost. Minor gaps like pagination mechanics are already handled by the schema, so it is nearly complete.

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 high at 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the `q` search behavior (name or set code) but does not add meaning for cursor, language, or page_size beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it lists editions (sets) of a game, with identifiers, and that results are ordered newest first. It distinguishes the resource and scope well, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edition_overview or list_games.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose—listing editions for a game—and the `q` parameter hint suggests searching by name or set code. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edition_overview, nor any stated exclusions.

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