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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the ordering of results (newest first), the fields returned per version, and the follow-up fetch contract. A minor gap is that filtering by status is only surfaced in the schema, not the prose.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then return shape, then the fetch workflow, with no filler sentences. It runs slightly long for a two-parameter list tool, but the fetch chaining information justifies the extra length.

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?

An output schema exists and return values would not need restating, yet the description still supplies ordering and the downstream fetch contract. Combined with the schema's status enum documentation, an agent has everything needed to call it and use its results 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 100%, so both documentId and the status enum are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only repeats "Pass documentId" and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond it, which is the baseline case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every version of a document") and implicitly separates itself from siblings like fetch and update_document_status. An agent can identify this as the version-listing tool without opening the 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?

Gives explicit triggers ("when the user asks what changed, or you need an older version before calling fetch") and names the complementary tool fetch, including the exact contract (pass returned documentVersionId to fetch, omit it for the latest draft). Both when-to-use and how it chains to alternatives are spelled out.

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