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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: older editions return an access boundary and links, and crucially, the tool 'never bypasses membership or payment' — a significant guarantee for an agent deciding whether to use it in a membership-gated context.

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 with the core operation front-loaded and constraints efficiently placed. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical edge case (older editions) and the security boundary. It doesn't describe the shape of a successful response, but the simplicity of the operation and the strong annotations make this a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 100%, so the date format and category enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('stored edition'), and immediately scopes it to the seven-day public window. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like read_latest_edition (latest vs. by-date) and export_edition (read vs. export) without needing to open schemas.

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 seven-day public window sets a clear temporal boundary for when this tool is appropriate, and the note about older editions returning an access boundary implies its limits. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over read_latest_edition or export_edition, leaving some usage routing to inference.

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