ons_data_editions

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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds 'live' as a scoping constraint (only live editions are returned), which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or data freshness, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core action 'List live editions' before the scope. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is compact without being incomplete for its simple purpose.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the return shape is covered. However, the input parameter 'dataset' is left undefined, and 'live editions' could benefit from domain clarification. The description alone does not fully equip an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that a dataset is required ('for an ONS dataset') without specifying the expected format (ID, slug, name) or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid parameter value with confidence.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('live editions'), and scope ('for an ONS dataset'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool ons_data_versions which deals with versions. The action is unambiguous and clearly separated from other data-related 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ons_data_versions or ons_data_query. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the specific situation where listing live editions is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer the usage.

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