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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are ordered newest-first and pagination is driven by a nextCursor fed back as offset, which the schema does not reveal (there is no cursor parameter defined).

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the ordering constraint is front-loaded before the pagination instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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 explanation, and the description covers ordering and pagination strategy, which is the main non-obvious behavior. It falls just short of 5 because the limit parameter's tuning and the offset ceiling are left entirely to the schema.

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 33%: artifactId is documented, but limit and offset carry no schema descriptions beyond defaults and ranges. The description partially compensates by explaining how offset is derived from nextCursor, but it says nothing about limit (default 50, max 100) or the consequences of exhausting the offset cap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List artifact versions') and adds the sort order ('newest first'), which distinguishes it from artifact_get_content or artifact_version_diff. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from adjacent siblings like artifact_version_delete or artifact_versions_prune, but the read-only listing purpose is unambiguous.

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 implied by 'List artifact versions' plus the pagination note, so an agent can infer this is the call for retrieving version history. However, no alternative is named (e.g., when to use artifact_version_diff instead) and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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