guardian_get_edition

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens when an edition ID is invalid.

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, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly terse and sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, which reduces its overall helpfulness.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, potential errors, and typical use cases. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only hints at the 'edition_id' parameter via 'by ID.' It fails to explain the purpose of the optional 'api_key' parameter or specify the format/expected values for 'edition_id.' This leaves the agent with significant ambiguity about how to construct the call.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Guardian edition by ID,' making the tool's specific purpose immediately clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like guardian_get_article and guardian_get_sections by specifying 'edition' as the target.

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 alternative Guardian tools (e.g., search_articles or get_sections). No context is given about what an edition represents or prerequisites for retrieval.

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