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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior (newest-first ordering, restorability via rollback_site) but says nothing about how many versions are returned, whether there is a limit or pagination, or what identifying field a version carries for use with rollback_site.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ordering, with the follow-up sentence earning its place by linking to the rollback workflow. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool is and why you'd call it. The only real gap is not telling the agent what a version entry looks like (the identifier needed for rollback_site), which matters given the stated restoration purpose.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema with slug and id examples, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 last published versions of a site') plus ordering ('newest first'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools. The word 'last' is slightly ambiguous about how many versions are returned, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The description implies the use case by pairing the tool with rollback_site ('Any of them can be restored with rollback_site'), suggesting this is the discovery step before a rollback. However, it never states when not to use it, nor names an alternative listing tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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