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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: versions are not linked from old to new, so an agent must list them explicitly before reading a specific year. This is a meaningful non-obvious trait beyond what the annotation alone conveys. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. However, the trailing 'norm.' appears to be an unexplained fragment or stray token that does not contribute meaning and should be removed, preventing a higher score.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the description covers the key operational context: list versions before reading a year because versions are not linked. There is no output schema, but 'List the versions' reasonably implies the return value, and the description otherwise gives enough context for correct invocation.

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 the schema already provides a clear example for the 'cube' parameter. The description mentions the cube family years but does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource: versions of a cube family, with Nationalratswahl 2019/2023/2027 as examples. It also clarifies that this operation is a precursor to reading a year, which helps distinguish it from a direct read operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 description explicitly says 'use before reading a year,' giving an actionable instruction about when to invoke this tool. The clause 'nothing links old to new' explains why listing versions is necessary, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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