Get gallery version chain

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds value by spelling out error semantics: deleted galleries, malformed URLs, authentication failures, challenge pages, and upstream request errors are surfaced as tool errors rather than empty chains. It also discloses ordering and deduplication behavior. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded sentences: the first states what the tool does, and the second covers the input constraint and failure behavior. There is no filler, no repetition of annotation content, and every clause 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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient for correct invocation: it identifies inputs, the one-of constraint, the combination logic, and the error contract. It does not need to describe return values because the output schema handles that.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the mutual-exclusion constraint and site override behavior, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'exactly one gallery reference or full gallery URL' restates schema semantics but does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Combine...') and a concrete result ('ordered, deduplicated gallery version list'). It also names two distinct data sources, which sets it apart from sibling lookup tools like eh_get_gallery_metadata or eh_find_latest_gallery_version, even without naming them.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a full ordered version chain rather than a single version or a comparison, but it never explicitly says 'use this when...' or names alternatives like eh_find_latest_gallery_version or eh_compare_gallery_versions. 'Provide exactly one gallery reference or full gallery URL' is an input constraint, not when-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer applicability from the phrase 'gallery version list.'

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