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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the created version is a DRAFT (not live), a group is capped at 20 DRAFT versions, published versions do not count toward the cap, and the remedy is to publish or delete drafts. What is missing is whether creation can fail for other reasons or what identifier comes back.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the constraint and its remedy. No filler, no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 four-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it: the DRAFT nature of the result, optional inputs, and the capacity ceiling. It could go further by noting that the new version is not automatically deployed or what validation applies to the effective range.

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%, including the ISO-8601 offset requirement on the effective date fields, so the schema carries the detail. The description only restates that commit message and effective date range are optional, adding no new semantics such as ordering constraints between effectiveFrom and effectiveTo or default range behavior. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new DRAFT version in a policy group'), and the DRAFT qualifier meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like lexq_deploy_publish or lexq_versions_clone. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage context is implied by the capacity rule ('Publish or delete drafts to make room'), which tells the agent what to do when the limit is hit. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over lexq_versions_clone or lexq_versions_update, and no stated prerequisites such as permissions or group existence.

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