List OCSF versions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context about what 'bundled' means and the purpose of version listing for mapping work and schema evolution understanding. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances the agent's understanding beyond the structured hints.

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 perfectly structured: a clear opening statement followed by bulleted use cases and an explicit alternative recommendation. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 parameterless tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnly, not openWorld, idempotent) but no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does and when to use it. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and clear annotations, this is acceptable.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and usage context, which is the correct approach for a parameterless tool.

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 specific action ('List all bundled OCSF schema versions') with the resource ('OCSF schema versions'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's about 'bundled' versions rather than individual classes/objects, and explicitly mentions the alternative `ocsf_get_latest_version` for differentiation.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to see which versions are available', 'choose a specific version for mapping work', 'understand schema evolution') and when to use an alternative ('Typically you'll want to use `ocsf_get_latest_version` instead'). This gives clear context for selection among sibling tools.

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