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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ordering ('newest first'), the fields returned (creation time, source_sha256, current flag), and the tenant scoping. It does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what happens if the tool name does not exist, but for a read-only list operation this is acceptable.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the key output details. No wasted words.

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 read-only list operation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, the order, and the returned fields. It could mention pagination or error behavior, but those are minor gaps for this tool type.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that 'name' refers to a local tool name and that the result is version history, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('every published version of one of this tenant's tools'), and a clear scope ('newest first, each with its creation time, source_sha256, and whether it's the current one'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like host.tool_list, host.tool_diff, and host.tool_rollback.

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 description implies a clear use case: retrieving the version history of a specific tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of 'published versions' and 'newest first' makes it evident when to use it versus other tool-related siblings. A small gap: no explicit statement about when to prefer host.tool_diff or host.tool_rollback.

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