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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information: the scope is limited to *published* versions and the response identifies which version is currently live, which is exactly the context an agent needs before a rollback. It omits ordering/pagination and whether the list is truncated, keeping it off a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contents, followed by the use case. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter read-only listing with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, this description supplies everything needed: what it returns, what 'versions' means (published only), and when to call it.

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% and the single pageId parameter is already documented in the schema as 'the pageId returned when the page was first published.' The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 all published versions of a page') and enumerates exactly what comes back: version number, changelog, date, and the live flag. An agent can distinguish this from get_previous_version_html or rollback without opening any schema.

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?

Names two concrete contexts — before a rollback, and reviewing publish history — which routes the agent to the correct sibling workflow. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., 'does not return draft versions' or 'use get_previous_version_html to fetch content'), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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