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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that versions are 'restorable' and 'including versions created by MCP writes,' which goes beyond the structured data. However, it does not detail pagination, ordering, or return format, so the description adds moderate but not rich behavioral insight.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, resource, scope, and the key distinguishing trait (MCP writes) efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to identify the operation. It clearly states the purpose and scope, and the 'restorable' and 'MCP writes' details provide necessary context. The lack of explicit return-format information is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity, but not critical.

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 100% coverage of the sole parameter (app_id) with a description of 'The app ID.' The tool description does not add any additional parameter details, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the parameter is fully documented structurally.

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 clear action (list) and resource (restorable Saved Versions) with a specific scope (for an app). It also distinguishes itself by noting it includes versions created by MCP writes, setting it apart from related tools like compare_saved_versions or restore_file_from_version without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context that this is a listing operation for a specific app, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compare_saved_versions). The inclusion of 'restorable' and 'MCP writes' implies a broad listing use case, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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