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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the history is scoped to the authenticated tenant, but does not disclose behavioral details such as pagination via the limit parameter or ordering of returned versions. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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?

A single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the primary action and object, and every word contributes meaning. This is an appropriately concise description for a simple list operation.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no required inputs, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and resource. The main gap is the lack of any mention of the limit parameter, but the schema supplies its constraints, so the overall context is nearly complete.

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%, and the description does not mention the lone 'limit' parameter at all. Though the parameter name and constraints are self-explanatory to a degree, the description offers no compensation for the missing schema description, so the agent receives no explicit guidance on how limit affects the returned results.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('versioned customization history') and scope ('for the authenticated tenant'). This precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like restore_workspace_version and get_workspace_customization_status, which perform different operations on related resources.

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 implies its use case (listing version history) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like restore_workspace_version or get_workspace_customization_status. The workflow context (e.g., 'use this before restoring a version') is left unstated, so usage is only implicitly derived from the tool's purpose.

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