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

Annotations already establish this as a read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by disclosing ordering ('newest first') and the returned metadata (who made each version, through which agent). It omits pagination or limits on history depth, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentence with the action and resource front-loaded, then the two facts an agent most needs (ordering and authorship). There is no filler and nothing redundant with the 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?

This is a simple single-parameter read with rich annotations and no output schema, so the description needs only to signal what comes back — and it names versions, ordering, author, and agent. Minor gaps remain around history limits or version identifiers, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 artifactId parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about argument format or ID resolution, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb-and-resource pairing ('see an artifact's versions') plus the ordering and content of the result, so an agent can distinguish it from read_artifact or list_artifacts. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, which keeps it out of the 5 tier.

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 phrase 'Use to see...' implies the usage context but gives no explicit when/when-not conditions and never mentions alternatives such as read_artifact for current content or restore_version when the goal is to revert. An agent must infer the routing from the resource name alone.

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