get_master_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page params, nor rate limits or result ordering. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a modest addition.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose and returned fields first, filters and workflow second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists and 9 params have zero schema coverage, so the description carries the burden. It covers purpose, filters, and the downstream workflow well, but leaves pagination/sorting semantics unexplained for a list tool.

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 and it only partially does: it explains the format, country, year (mapped to `released`) and label filters. It omits the semantics of page, per_page, sort, sort_order, and master_id, leaving roughly half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ('every version (pressing) of a master') and even names the returned fields (label, catno, country, year). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_master (the master itself) and get_release (a single release).

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?

Provides a concrete trigger ('which pressing is this?') and routes the agent to the follow-up tool (get_release) for confirmation, plus lists the usable filters. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or when get_master/get_release alone would suffice.

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