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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully handled elsewhere. The description adds value by describing the returned record contents (build log URLs, deployer identity) and by pointing at the revert workflow, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering — relevant for a history endpoint on an open-world tool.

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, with the resource and returned fields front-loaded before the follow-on action. The field enumeration is slightly list-like but each item tells the agent something it needs, so there is no real waste.

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?

The tool is a simple read with one parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. What it offers — the shape of the records plus the revert handoff — is close to sufficient; only ordering and pagination behavior are 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?

There is a single required parameter, site_name, and the schema covers it at 100% with its own description. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that (e.g., whether it accepts a display name or an internal identifier), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 names the resource (deployment history for a site) and enumerates exactly what comes back: version numbers, statuses, build times, build log URLs, and deployer identity. That separates it well from mutation siblings like deploy_site or redeem, but it never distinguishes itself from the adjacent list_site_releases, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 description tells the agent to take version numbers from here and feed them to revert_site_version, which is a useful follow-on linkage. It gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus list_site_releases or get_site_status, and no preconditions such as site-existing or auth requirements.

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