Available Aurora OS versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds context that the output is system IDs plus OS versions and that system IDs are not usable as tool arguments, which is useful but doesn't deeply expand beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical usage caveat appears immediately in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only, output-schema-bearing tool, the description fully covers why to call it and how to interpret the result. It also connects the result to the wider tool ecosystem by clarifying that system IDs are not accepted parameters elsewhere.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's note about aurora_version concerns other tools, not this tool's inputs, so there is no parameter semantics gap to compensate for.

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 names the exact resource: website system IDs and their OS major versions. It also clarifies the relationship between system IDs and aurora_version, which makes the tool's output distinguishable from the other app-oriented siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent that tools accept aurora_version (4 or 5), not system IDs, which is important routing guidance for subsequent calls. It doesn't explicitly list when to avoid this tool, but the guidance is clear and actionable for the primary decision that matters here.

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