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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety and mutability profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations lack: results are capped at 10 and ordered newest first, and each entry carries a version_id. It does not mention pagination or what happens beyond the 10-item cap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the two most decision-relevant facts (cap and ordering) and the returned identifier. No filler or redundancy.

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 does the work of describing the return payload's key shape (version entries with version_id, newest first, max 10). The remaining gap is that it does not say what other fields a version entry contains or what happens when there are no saved versions.

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% for the single site parameter, including format examples and a pointer to list_sites, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema says, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Lists) and resource (saved previous versions of a site), and adds useful scope detail: capped at 10, newest first, returns version_id. It is clearly distinct from list_sites, but it never names restore_version, the sibling whose existence gives this tool its purpose, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. Usage is only implied: returning version_id signals that this is the discovery step before restore_version, but the agent must infer that pairing rather than being told it.

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