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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: graduated=false and empty list for non-graduated drops, degraded=true meaning unknown rather than nothing published, newest-first ordering, and the currently served version. It also clarifies the managementToken rule for owned drops.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: action/ordering, the level 1-3 edge case, and the degraded/auth caveats. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 explains the important return distinctions (graduated, empty list, degraded) despite having no output schema. It is nearly complete, though it could name the exact version object fields returned; the current information is sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for managementToken by explaining when it is unnecessary, and ties dropId to the drop/app being listed. It does not fully define every parameter, but the schema's pattern and the tool title cover the rest.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: list published versions of a GRADUATED app, newest first, with the currently served one. It also distinguishes this from the no-history behavior of levels 1-3, so an agent can separate it from sibling tools like list or status.

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 gives explicit when-not guidance: levels 1-3 have no history because replace overwrites the same key, and explains the degraded/empty-list semantics. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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