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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: entries are ordered newest first, the shape of each entry, and the retention caps per plan (10/50/unlimited), which is critical for interpreting 'every retained version'.

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-loaded with the operation and ordering, then the inputs, then the return fields, then retention limits. Every clause carries information, though 'Inputs: slug and token' is mild redundancy given the 100%-covered schema and could be cut.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (version, created_at, file_count, bytes, kind, restored_from, permalink). Combined with the retention quotas and the newest-first ordering, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both slug and token in more depth than the description ('Bearer token returned by your first publish'). 'Inputs: slug and token' restates the schema without adding syntax, format, or constraint detail, so the baseline of 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'), plus scope (owned by token) and ordering (newest first). This clearly separates it from the mutation sibling restore_version and from get_manifest, which returns a different artifact.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a read-only inventory call to run before restore_version, and the phrase 'owned by the token' hints at the auth scope. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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