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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the sequencing cue (list before restoring) but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or volume of versions returned.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the action plus the workflow rationale are front-loaded. The trailing 'MCP version 2.12.' is terse but serves the required mcp_version parameter.

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-only two-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the definition supplies everything needed to select and invoke it. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not characterize the returned version entries.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the app_id target and hints at the mcp_version value ('MCP version 2.12'), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('list stored versions' for an app), and the phrase 'before choosing a version to restore' implicitly distinguishes it from the mutating sibling apply_app_version. It is clear without explicitly naming a sibling tool.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call it with app_id to enumerate versions before selecting one to restore, which maps directly onto the restore workflow. It stops short of explicitly naming apply_app_version as the alternative or stating exclusions, so it lands just below the top score.

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