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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by describing the returned fields (version number, description, time, retention) and the pinning workflow, but doesn't mention pagination or retention semantics. With annotations carrying the core behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with zero waste: the first states what is returned, the second states how to use it, and the endpoint is tacked on without disrupting flow. It is front-loaded with the resource definition.

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, one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what fields come back and the key operational use case. It could mention that the list is scoped to a single template or whether versions expire, but the gap is minor.

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%, so the template_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't redundantly explain the parameter, which is fine. However, it conveys the semantic link between the returned version number and downstream usage, adding faint conceptual value 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'The saved versions of a template.' It enumerates the returned fields and even the endpoint, so an agent can distinguish this from siblings like craftmypdf_get_template or craftmypdf_list_templates without opening the schema.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Use a version number when generating to pin the layout'), which tells the agent why and when to call it. It doesn't name an explicit alternative to avoid, so it falls short of a 5, but the operational purpose is clear.

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