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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds that it's AUTHORITATIVE and describes the version-dependency relationship with other tools, which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe return format, pagination, or caching behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence is information-dense and justified given the cross-tool versioning context. Slightly long but every clause earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers purpose, authority role, and version context. Missing only return-format details, which are minor here given the simple listing nature.

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 100% — the latest_only parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default and the effect of passing false. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb (List) and resource (terminologies served by NCI EVS) with the added dimension of version reporting. Distinguishes itself from the sibling evs_concept/evs_search_concepts by framing itself as the authoritative source for what is queryable and which release the other tools answer from.

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 clearly indicates when this tool matters — as the authoritative reference for vocabulary availability and version context before interpreting concept records from sibling tools. It implies usage before/alongside other EVS queries but doesn't give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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