whodb_platform_object_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral detail – that 'promoted' versions are listed (implying drafts/non-promoted versions are excluded) and that the workspace override is call-scoped and does not mutate defaults. It still says nothing about ordering, limits, or result shape.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence overlaps the schema's own workspace description, which is the only minor inefficiency.

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 read-only listing tool whose annotations and schema are fully covered, this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about what is returned (version identifiers, ordering, whether all versions or a page). Nothing addresses routing to the adjacent version tools.

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 100%, so every parameter (id, fields, object_type, workspace with nested host/org/project) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention that workspace is {host, org, project} and does not change defaults largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (list) and resource (promoted versions) and enumerates exactly which object types are versionable, so the scope is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like whodb_platform_active_version or whodb_platform_project_active_versions, so an agent must guess which version-listing tool applies.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only contextual sentence concerns workspace targeting, which is invocation mechanics rather than selection criteria.

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