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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: exact `total` vs page size, `hasMore`, default/max pagination values, query behavior across the whole history, and the `indexUnavailable` fallback caveat. This is unusually transparent for a read-only listing tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core action and ordering come first, followed by response and pagination details, then the high-value `query` and fallback warnings. Every sentence carries operational value, and the warning structure makes the caveats easy to scan.

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 appropriately explains the response fields `total`, `hasMore`, and `indexUnavailable`. Together with pagination, query scope, and the restore-oriented use case, it gives an agent enough context to invoke and interpret this listing tool correctly.

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 already 80%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially that `query` filters labels across the entire history and that `offset` is measured from the most recent version, though it does not add much about `expectedProjectId` or `_unused`.

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: it lists the saved versions of the schema, with the important ordering constraint MOST RECENT FIRST. It also distinguishes the tool's purpose as finding a version number to restore, which separates it from restore_version and get_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?

It clearly gives the primary use case: finding the version number to restore, and explains that `query` is the way to find a named restore point across the whole history. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as get_version or diff_versions, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive on when to choose this tool over those.

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