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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is truncated at 10 entries and ordered newest first, so the agent knows it may not see the full history.

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?

One well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then layers the cap, ordering, and returned key with zero filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does state the count limit, ordering, and the identifying field. It stops short of describing what each version entry contains (timestamp, name, etc.), a minor gap for an otherwise complete definition.

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% and the single 'site' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including format examples and a pointer to list_sites. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the saved previous versions of a site') and adds scope detail: cap of 10, newest-first ordering, and the version_id each entry carries. An agent can distinguish this read-only inventory tool from the sibling restore_version mutation without opening either 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?

Usage is only implied — mentioning 'with their version_id' hints that this is the lookup step before restore_version, but the description never states when to use it or names restore_version as the follow-up alternative. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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