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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by noting that versions are returned 'newest first' and that both HTTP/HTTPS repos and OCI registries are supported. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description complements it without contradiction.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then provides practical usage guidance, earning its length.

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?

This is a complete definition for a list-oriented read tool. The annotations declare read-only behavior, the output schema exists, the schema fully documents parameters, and the description explains ordering, supported repository types, and when to invoke the tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds some useful operational context around repository URL formats and OCI support, but it doesn't fundamentally extend parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get available versions of a chart.' It adds ordering behavior ('newest first') and protocol scope (HTTP/HTTPS and OCI). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_values and get_dependencies based on the unique output resource.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'confirm a chart exists before calling get_values, or to find a specific version to pin.' It provides clear context and a concrete downstream relationship with get_values, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to all siblings.

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