cs_get_edition_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read operation ('abrufen') and describes the return type, but it does not address potential side effects, error behavior, or permissions. This provides moderate transparency but leaves notable gaps.

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 well-organized with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, Args, Returns) and is reasonably compact. The opening sentence and PURPOSE section are somewhat redundant, and the inclusion of an internal 'ctx' parameter adds noise. Overall, it earns its place but could be tightened.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, when to use it, the meaning of the argument, and the return type. It does not explain failure modes or empty results, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% coverage of description in the schema. The description adds that edition_id is an 'Edition-UUID in correspSearch', which clarifies the expected value. However, it provides no format validation, requiredness context (beyond schema), or further semantics, so it only partially compensates.

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 states that the tool retrieves information about an edition in correspSearch and explicitly defines its purpose as returning metadata for registered editions. It uses a specific verb ('abrufen') and resource ('Edition'), making its function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section with three concrete scenarios, offering clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it misses the explicit exclusion that would merit a 5.

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