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

The annotations already mark this as a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is met on the safety side; the description then adds genuinely non-obvious traits: results are ordered newest first, exactly one release is flagged active, releases that never went live are silently excluded, and the tool is refused for websites. These are behavioral facts the agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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 lead sentence front-loads verb, resource, ordering, and returned fields, and the exclusions and auth requirement follow compactly. The rollback-workflow sentence is useful routing rather than filler, though it slightly lengthens the definition beyond pure 'list' semantics. No wasted or redundant phrasing.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and status. It also covers the auth prerequisite, the ordering guarantee, the never-live filtering, and the website refusal, so an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, with name, limit (1-100, default 20), and org_name all documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's field list (version, state, commit, created, active) describes outputs, not inputs, and adds no syntax or format guidance for the three parameters. 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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (releases) plus scope (an app's or agent's), and it enumerates the returned fields (version, state, commit, created, active). It also draws a boundary against siblings by stating 'Websites are refused', separating it from the publish_site/claim_site family even though no exact list_releases sibling exists.

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?

It supplies a concrete alternative path for rollback (read earlier files via get_source with its release argument, then republish), which tells the agent when not to treat this as the rollback tool itself. It also states prerequisites ('Requires connecting a Valet account') and exclusions ('Websites are refused'). It stops short of explicitly ranking itself against the other list_* siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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