eds_da_get_versions

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

The description discloses the authentication requirement (EDS_DA_TOKEN), which is useful because no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention the read-only nature, response format, or any potential side effects, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and requirement. No redundant words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the description is largely sufficient for selection and invocation. It provides the purpose and auth requirement, though it could mention what the version history response contains since there is no output schema.

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?

The schema fully describes the single 'path' parameter, and the description does not add any additional semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('version history of a Document Authoring source document'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like eds_da_get_source, which retrieves the actual source content.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need the version history of a DA document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like eds_da_get_source.

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