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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing that all returned config data is hashed and redacted (i.e. no raw secrets or prompt content) and that rollback lineage is included — neither of which is derivable from annotations. Pagination beyond the schema's `limit` is not discussed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the listing behavior and followed by the mode switch — an agent can parse the decision in one read. Minor waste: 'redacted' appears in both sentences, and the trailing REST-endpoint mirror adds little for an agent that has no HTTP context.

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 an output schema present, return values need no prose, and the annotations carry the safety semantics. The description covers both operating modes and the nature of the data returned. Remaining gap is small: nothing explains how version_number values are ordered or what configuration items the history actually captures.

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 largely restates the schema's own wording for `version` (per-version fetch returning a redacted config_snapshot); its only incremental signal is the 'hashed, redacted' framing, which is marginal on top of what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'List an agent's hashed, redacted assistant config version history' — plus a distinguishing qualifier ('rollback lineage included'). The 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/agents/versions' grounding makes the scope unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from plausible siblings like get_change_history or get_operational_settings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 dual mode is spelled out explicitly: 'Pass `version` to fetch one version's full redacted config_snapshot instead of the list,' with the schema adding 'omit to list.' That gives the agent a clear decision rule for the branch. Missing is any guidance on preconditions (permissions/trust level) or when this is preferable to the change-history sibling.

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