get_edition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it is a GET request, that it returns the current paper, and notes that headlines may be outbound. However, it does not describe response format, error conditions, or rate limits, which remain unknown for this endpoint. The scope constraint 'Public newspaper only' is stated, but overall behavioral information is sparse.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action (GET /edition.json from the public newspaper). The extra clauses like 'Not tax advice' and 'Do not fetch Hopper' add contextual warnings but are short and do not bloat the text. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and constraints, though one could argue the 'Not tax advice' is somewhat extraneous.

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 zero-parameter GET endpoint with no output schema, the description provides the essential information: the endpoint, scope, and a behavioral caveat about outbound headlines. It does not detail expected response structure or error handling, but for such a simple tool, this level of detail is largely sufficient. The description is complete enough for an agent to decide to call 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description carries no parameter-explanation burden. With schema coverage at 100% (since there are no parameters to cover), the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter details because none exist.

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 explicitly states the HTTP method (GET), the resource (/edition.json), and the scope (public newspaper, current paper). It also distinguishes from potential alternatives by specifying 'Public newspaper only' and explicitly warning 'Do not fetch Hopper,' which clarifies the tool's specific 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It implies usage for fetching the current edition, but the only exclusion is 'Do not fetch Hopper,' which is not a sibling tool. No mention is made of alternative tools like get_feed or get_llms_txt, or conditions that would choose one over the other.

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