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

Annotations already establish readOnly/no-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: ordering (newest first), the two build origins (uploaded vs AI Coder), and that one build is the players' current one. It omits any pagination/limit behavior, keeping it out of the top score.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and ordering before the qualifying details. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only list tool with full parameter coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description supplies the key semantic details (ordering, sources, live build). Only pagination behavior is unaddressed, and the schema already covers the limit parameter.

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%: both title_id (Live TitleID) and limit (default 10, max 30) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?

Names the specific resource (the Title's game versions) and its scope (recent, newest first, uploaded and AI-Coder-built, plus which is live). An agent can tell it returns a collection. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_build for the single-build case, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the plural 'versions' signals a listing operation in contrast to get_build, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_build or what the alternatives are. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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