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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful payload context (what the version tree contains, which is the working copy, which have batches), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-result behavior. Adds some value over annotations, not rich behavioral depth.

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?

A single sentence with the trigger front-loaded and every clause carrying content (notes, parents, working copy, batches). No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so concretely. Combined with annotations that fully cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only ordering/pagination details are absent.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the id-vs-exact-name convention and pointer to list_formulas. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (versions of a formula) plus a precise enumeration of the payload (version tree, notes, parents, working copy, batches). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like open_version, branch_version, and save_version, which act on a single version rather than enumerating them.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user asks about a formula's history.' That is a real when-to-use statement, not just implied. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g. get_formula for a single-version snapshot) or state when not to use it.

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