list_editions

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains the surprising reason why a 'list' call is not read-only: it 'may publish already-due daily editions and queue their normal opt-in notifications using the server clock'. That is exactly the kind of beyond-annotation disclosure that matters. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens on repeat calls.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the scoping and cost constraint are front-loaded. A few phrases ('rolling 90 Eastern calendar dates') are compressed enough to require a re-read, but nothing is redundant.

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 non-read-only tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description does well on side effects and scope but leaves gaps: return shape, cursor semantics, and whether the 32-date cap interacts with 'limit' are all unstated. Adequate to call correctly, not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents neither parameter. The description supplies only the 'at most 32 dates per call' cap, which loosely bounds page size, but never explains what 'limit' or 'cursor' mean or how pagination interacts with the 90-day window.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List published editions') and bounds the scope precisely to 'the rolling 90 Eastern calendar dates' plus 'the latest during a source delay'. It is clearly not get_latest_edition or search_edition, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'without spending an archive unlock' implies the key alternative (unlock_edition) and the cost tradeoff that selects this tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_latest_edition or search_edition, and the overlap with get_latest_edition for 'the latest during a source delay' is left ambiguous.

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