get_latest_edition

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

With readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false, the description usefully discloses a real side effect that annotations cannot: it may publish already-due daily editions and queue their normal opt-in notifications using the server clock. It does not state whether this is rate-limited, logged, or reversible beyond the notification detail.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the side effect clearly separated. The trailing '(at most 32 dates per call)' clause is the only questionable element because it implies a batch parameter that does not exist.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract; it names the returned edition and source date but not the fields or shape. For a zero-parameter read-plus-possible-publish tool, the disclosure of the publishing side effect is the key piece and it is present; the unexplained 32-date limit is the notable gap.

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 takes zero parameters, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but the description introduces a '32 dates per call' limit that refers to inputs the schema does not expose. That reference adds confusion rather than meaning, so it is marked down from the zero-parameter baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the latest published carrier edition and its source date') and its scope ('latest published') distinguishes it from list_editions and search_edition. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with those siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor a named alternative. Usage is only implied by 'latest published' versus the listing/search siblings, so the agent must infer the routing decision.

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