list_feed_editions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned payload shape and the cache-detection intent, which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or whether it is a read-only operation. Partial coverage only.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the field list and purpose parenthetical adding value. No wasted wording.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description helpfully names the returned fields, which covers the return-value gap. However, for a listing tool with an undocumented time-window parameter and no usage routing among nine siblings, it is only minimally 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 0% and the description never mentions the single 'days' parameter, its default of 7, or its 1-60 range. 'Recent editions' gestures at a time window but does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 verb (List) and resource (recent editions) and enumerates the returned fields (primary module, item id, content hash). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_daily_feed or get_feed_since, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many get_feed_* siblings, and no prerequisites. The only hint is the parenthetical '(for cache detection)', which implies a use case but doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over get_feed_since or get_daily_feed.

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