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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds only the nuance that names are 'permanent' and attached to 'committed' revisions, which helps distinguish named versions from transient history but is thin beyond that; no pagination, scope, or result-shape context is given.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for the tool's place in a crowded namespace, but judged purely on economy and structure it is efficient.

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 a simple one-parameter read operation with an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, nothing tells the agent how this list relates to sheets_list_history or the version-restore family, which is the main missing context for correct selection.

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%, so the description would need to carry parameter meaning, and it does not mention sheetId at all. The single parameter is a self-evident UUID identifier, so the name does nearly all the work, but the description adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb (List) and a well-defined resource: permanent names assigned to committed sheet revisions, i.e. named versions. This is distinguishable from the other list siblings (sheets_list, sheets_list_history, sheets_list_archived), though the description never explicitly names those alternatives or uses the term 'named version' that the title and sibling tools (sheets_create_named_version, sheets_rename_named_version) use.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as sheets_list_history or sheets_get_version_restore. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this or a history-listing tool is the right call.

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