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

The description states 'read this' and the purpose is read-only, aligning with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds useful context about what the result implies (stale snapshots) without contradicting the annotation. Since annotations already indicate read-only behavior, the description provides adequate transparency.

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 long, with the key purpose and usage context front-loaded. It avoids extraneous details and is easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for an agent selecting from many sibling tools.

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 gives enough context for an agent to know when and why to call this tool, including the difference between mutable and published doc versions. It does not describe the exact response structure (no output schema is provided), but the purpose and expected result are sufficiently clear for a read-only query 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 schema covers both parameters fully (specId and includePublished). The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, as the default behavior is already described in the includePublished parameter description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the main semantic load.

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 tool's purpose: finding which documentation versions embed a given API specification. It uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource (documentation versions), and provides context (after publishing a spec, to see stale snapshots). This is enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to use it.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('read this after publishing a spec to see which snapshots are now stale') and explains the default behavior and the includePublished option. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for typical usage.

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