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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered and the description's job is narrower. It usefully discloses the returned fields (version, CVE count, fix count) and the read-only lookup role, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens when a product has no known versions.

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, zero filler. What it returns is front-loaded and the usage routing follows, so an agent can stop reading after the first line if it only needs to know output shape.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. With a single required parameter and fully documented schema, the only remaining gap is result-count/pagination behavior when more than 50 versions exist.

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%: product, search, and limit are all documented in the schema, including defaults and max. The description only reinforces that the product identifier is a slug/id and that exact version strings are the target, adding no format or syntax detail 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 and resource ("List the versions") scoped to a product, and adds what the result carries (per-version CVE and fix counts). An agent can distinguish this from search_products or product_cves without opening any 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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition: use this to resolve the exact version string before calling check_version, which names the downstream sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., when a full CVE enumeration is wanted, use product_cves), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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