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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, it discloses ordering (newest first), the full status vocabulary, that refused versions carry a reason, and that authentication is required. This is real operational context, though pagination/limits are unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical status list earns its space because no enum exists in the schema to convey those states.

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?

Auth requirement, ordering, status semantics, and rollback relevance are all covered, and an output schema exists so return shapes need not be re-explained. Only pagination/volume behavior is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% — the single 'space' slug parameter has a pattern and example — so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about the parameter, matching the baseline 3.

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 and resource: 'List a hosted space's versions, newest first.' It enumerates the returned attributes (number, status, size, rollback-pickability) and implicitly distinguishes itself from the rollback sibling by flagging which versions rollback can act on.

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?

Provides clear context for use: reviewing version state and determining what rollback can pick, plus the prerequisite 'Needs sign-in'. It does not explicitly name or exclude alternatives (my_spaces, publish, search_docs), so it stops short of a 5.

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