ons_data_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'list live versions' – it does not disclose what 'live' means (e.g., excluding archived or draft versions), pagination behavior, or any limits. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes little beyond the safety flags.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no filler or redundancy – every word earns its place. It is optimally sized for the low complexity of the tool.

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 simple list operation with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but omits any nuance about parameter semantics or what 'live versions' entails. Given the 0% schema coverage and lack of usage guidance, more context would be expected, though the output schema mitigates the need to describe return values.

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 description must explain the parameters, but it does not. It only mentions 'dataset' and 'edition' by name without adding format, constraints, or examples. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (live versions for an ONS dataset edition). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like ons_data_editions (which lists editions) and ons_data_dimensions. However, it does not elaborate on what 'versions' means or how it differs from other list-type tools beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a dataset and edition), nor does it note when another tool like ons_data_editions or ons_data_dimensions would be more appropriate. Usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and parameters.

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