List official document versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: 'requested-language availability reported without substitution.' This tells the agent that language availability is reported but no fallback substitution occurs, which is beyond what annotations convey. This enriches the agent's understanding of output behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. It conveys the primary behavior and the key nuance about language without unnecessary filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format is covered structurally. However, with 0% parameter schema coverage and no parameter descriptions in the tool description, the agent lacks essential information about how to construct the request. The description is too terse to be considered complete for a tool that must handle language availability logic; it does not explain edge cases, error conditions, or input constraints beyond what the schema provides (which itself has minimal detail).

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 compensate. It mentions 'requested-language availability' which implies the language parameter, but it does not explain the format, allowed values, or meaning of the 'document' parameter. The description fails to provide any detail about how to specify the document or what constitutes a valid language code, leaving a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters.

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 (original act and official consolidations), and adds the specific nuance of reporting requested-language availability without substitution. It is specific enough to distinguish from generic document retrieval, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_document_timeline or compare_document_versions, so it doesn't fully differentiate itself in wording.

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 any conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools. While the purpose implies it is for listing versions, there is no explicit 'use this when X' or 'not for Y' guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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