List model versions

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closedWorld), so the bar is lower. The description then adds genuinely useful context beyond structured fields: the training state machine (SUBMITTED → TRAINING → TRAINING_COMPLETED/TRAINING_FAILED) and the report-readiness states, which tell the agent how to interpret and poll the returned data. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or scoping behavior, keeping it from 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the two state vocabularies. Nothing is wasted, though the state lines are terse enough to be slightly cryptic without framing.

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 not be spelled out, and the annotations cover safety. What remains missing is parameter scoping and any routing hint against the many sibling list/get tools, leaving the definition only minimally adequate for this simple list operation.

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%, so the two required parameters (project_id, model_id) are documented nowhere. The description never mentions them or explains how they scope the listing, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap despite the names being fairly self-evident.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List model versions"), which unambiguously conveys the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as get_model_version or list_models, and the opening sentence is a bare restatement of the title, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., get_model_version for a single version, or list_models for models rather than versions). The agent is left to infer the routing decision entirely.

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