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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it specifies the fixed 20-release scope, statuses, authorship/time, note content, and the special behavior that failed releases include the last build-log line. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only-looking listing this is sufficient context.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core subject in the first clause and the notable failure behavior in the second sentence. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a two-parameter listing with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and the distinctive failed-release behavior, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. It lacks usage guidance and explicit read-only confirmation, but the schema covers invocation, so the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no additional meaning about the 'tool' or 'workspace' parameters beyond what the schema already states. It only implies that the releases belong to a tool, which is already explicit in the input schema.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as the last 20 releases of a tool and enumerates the fields returned, which makes the operation recognizable as a release-history listing. The verb is only implicit rather than explicit (e.g., 'list'), so it stops short of a 5, but it is distinct from siblings like deploy, rollback, and logs.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as logs, deploy, or rollback. There is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and listed fields.

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