catalog_get_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is that results are paginated, which the page/size/sort parameters already imply; it says nothing about ordering, default page size behavior, or what a 'version' contains.

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?

Three short lines, but the first two sentences largely restate each other and the first is the least accurate of the three, so the front-loading works against comprehension. The endpoint line is useful for mapping to the underlying API but is not otherwise load-bearing.

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 read-only list operation with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned and that it is paginated. It is incomplete in that it never clarifies what a version is or whether this returns all versions vs. only released ones, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% — id, page, size and sort are all documented with formats and defaults — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the endpoint path template, which merely restates that 'id' is a path parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource (fetch catalog item versions) and pins it to an endpoint, so the agent knows it returns a paginated version list for a given item. It loses a point because the opening sentence ('a list of catalog items with versions') is slightly at odds with the second, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings catalog_get_version_by_id or catalog_get_versions_for_admin.

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 statement of when to use this instead of catalog_get_version_by_id (single version), catalog_get_versions_for_admin, or catalog_get_catalog_item. The only implied guidance is that a catalog item id is required, which the schema already enforces.

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