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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the ordering guarantee (newest first), which is genuinely useful for picking a restore point, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what a version entry contains — and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 trigger condition and followed by the downstream step. No filler or restatement of the 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 simple read-only single-parameter lister whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description covers the essential workflow. The main gap is the absence of any return-shape or pagination hint and the unannotated site_id.

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 0% and the description never explains site_id — not its format, nor that it comes from list-sites. The phrase 'the site's saved versions' only implies that site_id selects the site, which is weaker than what an agent needs for a single undocumented required parameter.

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 ('Lists the site's saved versions') and gives the ordering ('newest first'). It is not fully distinguished from siblings in the text itself, but naming restore-version as the consumer makes the split between listing and restoring clear.

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?

Explicit trigger condition ('when the user wants to undo changes or go back to an earlier version') plus an explicit follow-up ('to pick one for restore-version'). It lacks a when-not clause, but the workflow routing is clear.

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