get_edition_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The phrase 'detailed information' hints that it returns a full record rather than a summary, but the description does not disclose error behavior, return format, or permissions. This is a safe read operation by implication, but the description is still minimal in behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that gets straight to the point. It has no fluff and conveys the key information efficiently, which is ideal for a simple ID lookup.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough in the sense that there is very little to explain. However, it does not clarify what fields are included in 'detailed information' or what happens when the edition is not found, leaving some room for ambiguity in downstream usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% since the single parameter 'id' has a description ('Edition ID'), and the description merely says 'by its ID'. No additional parameter semantics are added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('specific edition'), and the lookup mechanism ('by its ID'), which is precise and unambiguous. The wording 'specific edition' also differentiates it from sibling tools like get_book_by_id and get_editions_by_title, making the scope immediately clear.

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 implies the tool should be used when an edition ID is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. With many sibling lookup tools, the lack of routing guidance leaves some selection burden to the agent.

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