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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by disclosing output semantics: VANILLA is intentionally omitted and a missing type signals an unavailable list. It doesn't say what shape the values take (array of version strings?), which is the one gap against the absence of an output schema.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then usage, then edge cases. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

A read-only, no-parameter lookup with no output schema, and the description covers purpose, timing, keying, and two important absences (VANILLA, missing type). Only the concrete value format of each version list is left unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description still clarifies that results are keyed by config.type, giving the caller the only semantic needed to consume the response.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the Minecraft versions each config.type can run, keyed by type') and the title reinforces it. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like getBedrockRange or getPricingCatalog.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it before createServer or updateServer to choose config.version', naming the downstream tools and the reason for calling it. No inference required.

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