Compare editions and translations

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: full data per edition, price and discount in Toman, stock state, earliest delivery, and the important interpretation of print run as a popularity indicator. No contradictions with annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the main purpose before the field enumeration. The field list is long but each item adds practical value, and the closing question succinctly captures the tool's decision-support role. It is slightly long, but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned data fields, including units, Persian terms, and the print-run interpretation. The schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. It does not describe errors or edge cases, but for a read-only comparison tool this is acceptable.

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 schema already documents all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds some interpretive context (e.g., print run meaning, 'cheapest/available' aligning with sort and only_available), but most parameter semantics remain in the schema. 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 identifies the resource: all editions of one book, with a full list of per-edition fields. It also states the core use case: answering which translation is best, cheapest, or available. It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, though 'one book' helps distinguish it from search and browse tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when comparing editions or translations of a specific book and deciding among them. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'one book' scope and the quoted comparison questions make the intended usage obvious.

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