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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it lists already-published events only and requires project context. It does not describe return ordering or pagination, but that is a minor gap for a read-only listing 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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative tool plus prerequisite are stated in a compact, useful way.

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 listing tool with a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint, the description plus schema gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly: the subject, the distinction from scheduled publishes, and the context requirement. No output schema is present, but the description communicates what the result contains.

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% parameter coverage, so the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults and limits. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource and attributes returned: when a version was published, to which target, and by whom. It also distinguishes itself from get_scheduled_publishes, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for what has already been published') and names the alternative for future publishes ('get_scheduled_publishes'). It also notes the prerequisite of project context.

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