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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot: degraded=true semantics explicitly distinguished from 'nothing published', the empty-list behavior for levels 1-3, and the fact that an account token removes the managementToken requirement 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?

The purpose and scope lead the description, and the caveats (levels 1-3, degraded) follow in a logical order. It is dense and long, but with no output schema most sentences about the inventaire payload earn their place; the EU AI Act aside is the one stretch.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting on return semantics: inventaire scope, host classifications, degraded flag, and empty-history case. It is nearly complete, with only the dropId parameter's meaning left to the schema pattern.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does explain the managementToken alternative ('owned drops need no managementToken'), but says nothing about dropId beyond the schema's pattern, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in prose.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'List the published versions of a GRADUATED app (level 4), newest first, with the one currently served.' An agent can distinguish this from dropyour_list, dropyour_status, or dropyour_events without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear applicability conditions: only level-4 graduated apps have history, levels 1-3 return graduated=false with an empty list, and degraded=true means 'unknown'. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative for non-graduated apps, so it stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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