List the revisions of a package

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: anonymous calls work yet DataONE 'can lag new revisions' without an API key, and results are returned ascending. That staleness/auth caveat is the kind of trait structured fields cannot express.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns and its ordering, then input forms, then the caveat, then the next step. Dense but every clause carries information; the accepted-input enumeration is the only slightly redundant part.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers input formats, the anonymous-access caveat, and the follow-up call. It lacks any note on error behavior for an unknown/invalid identifier, which is the one remaining gap for a lookup 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 100% and the single parameter's accepted formats (series, revision, DOI, portal/PASTA URL, site code) are already documented in the schema; the description largely restates them. No additional syntax or normalization rules are added, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List every revision of one data package'), names the identifier form (scope.identifier), and specifies ordering (ascending, with newest and oldest). An agent can distinguish this from edi_get_package or edi_list_identifiers without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete follow-up chain ('Next: call edi_get_package(package=newestPackageId)') and enumerates accepted input forms, which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a sibling such as edi_list_identifiers, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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