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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description reinforces this by stating it lists versions. It adds behavioral details beyond annotations: the immutability of version 1, the guarantee of presence, the ordering, and the fact that earlier versions remain renderable. It also notes the API key and ownership requirement, which is useful context. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the main function ('List every stored version...'), followed by important guarantees and links to other tools. Every sentence adds value, with no repetition 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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return structure. It covers ordering, immutability, cross-tool compatibility, and authentication requirements. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter (project_id) has a description explaining it comes from house_specify for an authenticated call. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 lists every stored version of a house project, specifying the ordering (oldest first) and the exact fields returned (content hash, build/schema/archive revision, creation time). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('version history'), and the scope ('house project you own') distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_get or project_list.

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 useful context: version 1 is always present and immutable, and earlier versions remain renderable via palette_pdf's project_version input. This implies when to use this tool (to inspect version history before rendering) and mentions the alternative palette_pdf for rendering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus other listing tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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