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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is a set of valid version strings usable as inputs elsewhere, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or behavior for an unknown project slug. Useful workflow context, but little behavioral depth beyond annotations.

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. The purpose is front-loaded and the downstream-call guidance follows immediately, so an agent can act on the first clause alone.

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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, downstream usage, and the nature of the return value (valid version strings). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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 `project` parameter is documented in-schema with examples, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reinforces where the version value should come from (lockfile/package.json) but adds no detail about the project parameter itself. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List available snapshot versions for a project") and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself upstream of resolve_docs and search_docs. An agent knows exactly what this returns (version strings) 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?

Explicit sequencing guidance — "Call this before resolve_docs or search_docs" — plus a concrete selection rule: match the version the user actually depends on from their lockfile/package.json rather than guessing. Both when-to-call and how-to-choose are spelled out, with the alternatives named.

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