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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the list is scoped to a spec, it returns statuses, and includeSuggestions provides next version numbers. It also discloses the set_context prerequisite, which is not in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, then the includeSuggestions detail, then the prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place.

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 the core functionality, statuses, the includeSuggestions feature and its purpose, and the prerequisite. With no output schema, it doesn't explain return format, but for a list tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate. A 4 reflects completeness without being excessive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for includeSuggestions, explaining it returns the next major/minor/patch numbers under the versioning strategy and that create_version expects this. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 and resource: 'List all versions of an API specification with their status'. It also specifies the statuses (draft/review/published/deprecated) and mentions the includeSuggestions option. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_version (single version) and list_specs (lists specs, not versions).

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?

It explicitly states a prerequisite: 'Requires project context (call set_context first)'. It also explains when to set includeSuggestions (for next version numbers that create_version expects), giving a concrete use case. However, it doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so a 4 is appropriate.

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