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

Goes well beyond annotations, which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. It discloses plan-based retention caps (Free 10, Hobby 50, Pro uncapped), what removes a version (pruning, deletion, site deletion), cache staleness, v1 URL reuse, and the explicit caveat that this is not a permanent archive.

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?

Front-loads the core return description, then enumerates entry fields, then the retention caveats. It is somewhat dense but each sentence (caps, pruning, cache, URL reuse) carries real information rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned entry fields (version, created_at, file_count, bytes, kind, restored_from, permalink). Combined with the stability and pruning notes, it is complete for an agent to call and interpret results correctly.

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%, so both slug and token are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Inputs: slug and token' merely restates them and adds no format or constraint detail, so 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: returns every retained version of a slug owned by the token, newest first. The scope ('retained') and ordering distinguish it clearly from siblings like get_manifest and restore_version.

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 retention and pruning notes hint at when the list is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., restore_version, get_manifest). Usage must be inferred from the retention discussion.

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