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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description focuses on what the annotations can't say: the ordering (newest first), the access requirement, and the meaning of each returned field including liveBotIds. It adds substantive context beyond the annotation profile.

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 action and ordering are front-loaded, and the parenthetical release/enum definitions are dense but purposeful. Every sentence contributes, though the field-by-field enumeration makes it longer than strictly necessary for a list tool.

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 carries the burden of describing returned fields, and it does so thoroughly (number, origin enum, note, counts, liveBotIds). Combined with the access note and restore routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 the single optional applicationId is fully documented in the schema, including the personal-key failure mode. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable at baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the application's releases, newest first') plus an explicit definition of what a release is. It clearly distinguishes itself from restore_release, which it names, so an agent can separate listing from restoring without opening a schema.

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?

'Use restore_release to put one back' routes the agent to the sibling for the downstream action, and 'Requires view access' states a prerequisite. It doesn't cover when to prefer other listing tools or what to do if the list is empty, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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