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

The description mentions 'Requires project context', a behavioral prerequisite, and outlines what information is returned. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description, which implies no state changes by directing changes to another 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?

The description is two concise sentences that pack essential information without redundancy. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, usage, and requirements.

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 description covers what the tool does, why to use it, what information it returns, and a prerequisite. Despite having no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the expected output.

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?

The only parameter specId is fully described in the schema as 'Public ID (GUID) of the API specification'. The description adds no additional parameter context, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'version each environment currently pins for this spec', including details about frozen status and origin. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicitly provides the use case 'to see what each environment resolves to' and directs to an alternative tool 'promote_version' for changing pins. This is clear guidance on when and when not to use this tool.

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