mbs_yearbook_editions

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the date range adds context, but the description does not mention output format, pagination, or any possible limitations. It provides basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It includes the scope and output in a compact format without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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, no output schema), the description provides the essential information: what is listed, the date range, and the content of the results (URLs). It could potentially mention ordering or format, but for a minimal listing tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds value by specifying the resource ('Statistical Yearbook editions') and the output fields ('with their URLs'), which is sufficiently precise for a parameterless tool.

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 the verb 'List', the specific resource 'Statistical Yearbook editions', the date range '2005–present', and the included output 'with their URLs'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mbs_yearbook_tables, which likely handles tables within editions.

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 description provides a clear scope and resource, making the intended use fairly obvious. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mbs_yearbook_tables or mbs_publications, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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