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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals important behavioral traits: 'Version 1 is always immutable and always present' and 'Earlier versions remain renderable via palette_pdf's project_version input even after a newer version exists'. It also states the authentication and ownership requirements. These details provide meaningful context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 yet informative, using three sentences to convey the action, ordering, return data, immutability guarantees, cross-tool behavior, and authentication requirements. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the readOnlyHint annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, key behavioral guarantees, and prerequisites. The presence of an output schema means the description need not enumerate return fields, and it does not.

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?

The input schema covers the single parameter project_id with a clear description (returned by house_specify for an authenticated call), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'List every stored version of a durable house project you own'. It specifies ordering ('oldest first') and the exact data returned (content hash, build/schema/archive revision, creation time). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get and project_list, which handle project-level operations rather than version history.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: it lists a project's versions and explicitly notes ownership and API key requirements. It also gives a concrete cross-tool usage hint by mentioning that earlier versions remain renderable via palette_pdf's project_version input, which helps an agent understand the relevance of version history. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use project_get for current state'), so it stops short of a 5.

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