lt_list_editions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results are ordered newest first, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or how "consolidated" editions differ from amendments.

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 sentence with zero waste; the resource and the ordering constraint are both front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus ordering. Remaining gap is modest: for a tool sitting beside lt_get_edition_text and lt_list_amendments, one clause on the handoff to those siblings would complete it.

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 100% and the single tar_kodas parameter carries an example value, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that the input is an act, adding no format, validation, or error semantics beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("List the consolidated editions") plus the result ordering ("newest first"), which an agent can map to a concrete task. It does not name the sibling that fetches a single edition's text (lt_get_edition_text) or lt_list_amendments, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "of an act" – the agent must infer that this is the entry point for edition history rather than amendment history or edition text. No explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many lt_* siblings.

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