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

The description explicitly states 'without changing the website,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also adds context that the tool 'Returns version metadata,' which clarifies the nature of the operation beyond the annotations alone.

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. It front-loads the core action and purpose, then adds a concise behavioral guarantee. Every 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?

For a simple read-only list operation with one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It gives purpose, scope, and non-destructive intent without missing critical information an agent would need.

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 only parameter, linkId, is already fully documented in the schema with 'Carryo page link identifier to inspect.' Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. It remains at the baseline because no extra parameter context is provided.

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 action ('Lists previous versions of a Carryo website') and the resource scope ('previous versions'). It also specifies what is included ('version details and changes') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like website.list and website.read_version.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'for reviewing edit history or planning a restoration.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use cases are evident, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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