list_versions

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

Annotations already establish the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's only added behavioral content is the meaning of the 'indexed' state ('false until searchable evidence exists'). That is useful context beyond the annotations, but it is terse and says nothing about pagination 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (scope, product form, indexed semantics) contributes. The semicolon-joined second clause is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 list tool with rich annotations and an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose and the one non-obvious state flag. Only usage guidance and pagination behavior are absent, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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% and the single 'product' parameter is bare in the schema, so the description carries the load. It does add real semantics by stating the value may be a 'canonical or aliased' product reference, though it gives no format examples for either form.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('versions') scoped to 'one canonical or aliased BMC product,' which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_products and list_projects. It does not explicitly route an agent away from any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a product and wants its version list. There is no statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative, so it lands at implied rather than explicit guidance.

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