get_edition

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description focuses on the calling convention: this is a cheap pre-flight introspection to run before making a gated offer. It also compensates for the absent output schema by disclosing what categories of data come back. It does not describe cost, freshness, or format of the quota/history figures.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The return payload is front-loaded and the operational trigger follows immediately, which matches the order an agent needs to evaluate it.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the four data categories. It leaves granularity (units of quota usage, what a 'history window' looks like) unspecified, which is a minor gap for a read-only introspection tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the call as a blanket snapshot.

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?

Uses a specific verb (report) plus the exact resource and enumerates the four payloads it returns: edition, per-edition capability, quota usage of capped resources, and resource-history windows. That enumeration separates it cleanly from neighbours like get_health or get_resources without needing the schema.

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?

"Call this before offering a feature that may be gated" states a concrete trigger condition, and "instead of asking the operator which edition they run" names the behaviour it replaces. It stops short of naming a sibling tool alternative or any when-not case, so it is clear context rather than a full routing rule.

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