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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent safety, and the description adds real semantic value: newest-first ordering and the interpretation of rows with status 'published' and is_current false (waiting to publish vs. superseded, and rollback-able via publish_version). It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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-loaded with the returned shape, then usage routing, then status semantics. Dense but every clause carries information; the field enumeration sentence is somewhat long but earns its place since there is no output schema.

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 and a single parameter, the description compensates well by listing returned fields and explaining status combinations. The only gap is the absence of any statement about result volume/pagination for a listing tool that could return many 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the provenance and identity of proposal_id ('from list_proposals') and stressing that it is not a version_id, which is exactly the confusion an agent would hit. It adds meaningful disambiguation beyond the schema's own text.

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 the specific resource (the version table of one page), the ordering (newest first), and enumerates the returned columns, so an agent knows exactly what this yields. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_version/preview_version by being the listing operation over a proposal rather than a single version.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('when a new session has only a proposal_id') and the alternatives that cannot be used (preview_version, publish_version, get_version take a version_id, not a proposal_id). It further routes the agent away from scanning rows by pointing to list_proposals for the current version.

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