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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it describes the return structure ('array of version objects with id, filename, created_at, and main_version flag') compensating for the lack of output schema, and includes cost information ('Free').

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?

Four efficient sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, return structure documentation, usage guidance with sibling references, and cost indication. Information is front-loaded with the action verb. No redundancy with structured data fields.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (parameterless list operation) and absence of output schema, the description provides complete coverage by detailing the return array structure. Annotations cover safety profile. The 'Free' indicator addresses potential rate/cost concerns. No gaps remain.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. Per scoring rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter explanation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'CV versions' and scope 'for the authenticated user'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explaining the output (version objects) is used as input (cv_version_id) for specific sibling tools (ceevee_analyze_positioning, ceevee_full_review, ceevee_confirm_lens, ceevee_chat).

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool by naming four sibling tools that require the version id returned by this tool. Provides clear workflow guidance: 'Use the version id as cv_version_id in...' which establishes the tool's role in a sequence.

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