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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description aligns with that by using 'List.' The description adds a behavioral prerequisite: 'Requires project context,' which is not in the annotations. This extra context about a precondition is valuable beyond the annotation, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the core function and the key prerequisite. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool has a simple list operation, no output schema, and well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what is listed and the prerequisite. It does not describe the exact output fields, but the description itself ('when... to which target and by whom') gives a clear idea of the content. The skip/take pagination is in the schema. This is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list tool.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all four parameters, each with a clear description (skip, take, specId, versionId). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline, with high schema coverage, a 3 is correct since the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('when a version was published, to which target and by whom'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like get_scheduled_publishes (which covers scheduled events) and list_versions (which lists versions themselves). No ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 notes 'Requires project context,' which is a useful prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The required parameters (specId, versionId) imply the usage context, but the description does not mention any competing tools or exclusion conditions. This is an implied usage guidance rather than explicit.

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