guardian_get_edition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — no note on error behavior for invalid IDs, no indication of what a returned edition contains.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency — it could have carried the definition of an edition at no structural cost.

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?

For a two-parameter lookup with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, an agent is left not knowing what an edition is, what IDs are valid, or what the api_key parameter does. The definition is not complete enough to call the tool confidently.

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% for two parameters. 'edition_id' is named but never explained (valid values such as uk/us/au/international are not given), and 'api_key' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. With low coverage the description should have compensated and does not.

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 ('Get') and resource ('Guardian edition') keyed by ID, so an agent can tell this is a single-record lookup. It does not distinguish itself from Guardian siblings like guardian_get_article or guardian_get_sections, and 'edition' (a regional edition of the paper) is left undefined.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus guardian_search_articles or any other Guardian tool, and no mention of what an edition ID is or where to obtain one. The single sentence gives context only by implication.

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