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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context: the statuses returned, the includeSuggestions behavior for next version numbers, and the project context requirement. It does not contradict annotations and goes beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of includeSuggestions.

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 and reasonably concise. It front-loads the primary purpose and then packs usage guidance and a prerequisite into the second sentence. While the second sentence is somewhat dense, every phrase adds information and there is no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what the return includes. It mentions statuses and that a version id can be found, giving a hint at the output shape. It also covers pagination via parameters and the prerequisite context. For a list tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could detail the exact fields per version.

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 to includeSuggestions by explaining it returns the next major/minor/patch numbers expected by create_version, which is more informative than the schema's generic description. Other parameters (specId, skip, take) are adequately described in the schema, so the description adds just enough value to warrant 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 tool's purpose: listing all versions of an API specification with their status. It differentiates from the sibling get_version by explicitly noting the distinction between browsing all versions and fetching a single one. The verb 'list' and resource 'versions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to browse versions or find a version id; for one version by id use get_version.' It also states a prerequisite: 'Requires project context (call set_context first).' This clearly instructs when to use this tool and when to use an alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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