get_versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does convey that this is a read-oriented operation returning all available versions/translations. However, it does not describe the return shape, behavior when the title is not found, or any other runtime characteristics, leaving some ambiguity.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant terms. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter getter with full schema description coverage, the description is nearly complete: an agent knows what to pass and what general result to expect. The lack of an output schema and the lack of sibling disambiguation are minor gaps, but the tool is simple enough that the description suffices for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, title, with a clear description. The tool description adds only the context of 'specific text' and 'versions/translations,' which is useful but does not materially enrich the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action (get) and resource (all available versions/translations for a specific text), so an agent can infer the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_translations, which may cover overlapping functionality.

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 phrase 'for a specific text' gives a clear usage context: call this when you need versions/translations tied to a particular title. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a basic retrieval tool.

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