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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds context annotations don't carry: no publish action is triggered, and the rollback target is constrained by how its files were collected. It doesn't explain what happens to the currently served version or any auth requirements, so it is not a 5.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the operation and its scope, the second supplies the lookup path and the key restriction. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers what the tool does, where the version id comes from, and the main constraint. The only gap is the effect on the currently served version, which is minor given the annotation coverage.

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%, and both parameters (site, deployId) are already documented in the schema, including the get_site/list_sites provenance. The description's mention that get_site lists versions reinforces the deployId source but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — serving an earlier version of a site again — and immediately scopes it with 'without publishing anything.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_site by assigning version listing to that tool, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

It names get_site as the source of valid versions and gives one explicit precondition (versions whose files were collected cannot be targeted), which is a meaningful when-not rule. It stops short of stating broader when-to-use/when-not conditions or naming alternatives for related operations like publish_files.

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