List available PHP versions for an order

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already declare the safe read nature. The description adds the behavioral nuance that results are determined by the server the order is hosted on, which is useful context. No contradictions exist, and for a simple list operation, the description adds sufficient transparency beyond 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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows concisely. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, scoping, and usage context. It does not describe the response format, but that is not critical for a listing endpoint, and the tool's simplicity lowers the burden. It is adequately complete.

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?

The only parameter, order_id, has 100% schema description coverage ('Agency Plan order ID'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond mentioning the order context, which is already in the schema. Since coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not elevate it.

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 PHP versions for websites under an Agency Plan order, determined by the hosting server. It uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('PHP versions'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the website-scoped equivalent, making it distinguishable from siblings without ambiguity.

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: use before creating a website, and for an existing website call the website-scoped versions endpoint instead. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus an alternative, leaving no room for misuse.

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