get_application_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that—no pagination behavior, no result ordering, no note on whether all versions are returned unpaged, which matters for a 'get all' tool on an open-world resource.

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 convey one idea; the second is a rephrase of the first with no new information ('using its unique identifier' is the only marginal addition). The definition wastes half its length on redundancy rather than front-loading useful detail.

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?

With no output schema, nested object parameters at 0% description coverage, and an open-world read that may page or truncate, the description should explain return shape or listing behavior. It omits all of this, leaving an agent unable to predict what it will receive.

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% for the single nested parameter (applicationId inside path). The description says only 'using its unique identifier,' which hints at the identifier but gives no type, format, or sourcing guidance for the nested path object. This barely compensates for the complete absence of schema-level 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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('all versions for an application'), so an agent can tell this is a read of an application's version list. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_versions_collection, and the second sentence merely restates the first with different words rather than adding scope or distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_versions_collection or get_application. No prerequisites, no context cues, and no exclusions are provided; the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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