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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering (newest first), the exact fields returned, and an explicit exclusion (the specification is not returned). It does not mention pagination or result-size behavior, which would have earned 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 dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose and ordering come first, then the returned fields, then the exclusion and the pointer to get_config — properly front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return values, which it does by enumerating the four fields. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'limit' parameter, which leaves result-set control unspecified.

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 0% and neither parameter is documented in the description. 'the project's' only loosely implies project_id, and the 'limit' parameter is entirely unexplained — no default, no max, no effect on results. With zero schema coverage the description was required to compensate and does not.

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 project's deployed versions') with scope and ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly differentiates itself from get_config by declaring that the specification itself is not included. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_config or get_project_detail 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?

Routes the agent clearly: it names get_config for version contents and states the returned state_version is 'to pass to rollback', which implies the intended workflow. It lacks explicit when-not guidance against other read tools (get_events, get_project_detail), so it falls just short of a 5.

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