uis_list_versions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining that UIS publishes multiple new versions per year and that the tool returns a Markdown list with version names and publication dates, which is beyond the annotations.

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 very concise with only three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: stating function, providing context about publication frequency, and specifying the return format. No unnecessary text.

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?

Given zero parameters and a simple listing task, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the context of version releases, and the return format (Markdown list). Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and an output schema exists. No gaps remain.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information because none are needed. This is appropriate.

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 tool lists available versions of the UNESCO UIS database, distinguishing it from sibling tools like uis_list_countries and uis_list_indicators. The verb 'listet' and specific resource 'Versionen der UNESCO UIS-Datenbank' provide clear purpose.

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 mentions it is useful to ensure working with the latest data, implying usage context, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance or compare with alternatives. No exclusions are stated.

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