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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the returned content is the full markdown body; it says nothing about permission requirements or behavior when the revision is archived or missing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, and every clause earns its place. No filler.

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 covering return values and annotations covering safety, the description needs only purpose and scope, which it delivers. The remaining gap is sibling routing (list vs. get vs. restore), which is minor given the simple read-only nature of the 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 coverage is 100% and the tenant_slug parameter already carries a detailed multi-workspace explanation in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 (retrieve) and resource (a specific document revision) and adds the distinguishing detail that the full markdown body is returned. It does not explicitly contrast with kb_revisions_list or kb_skills_revisions_get, but the singular 'a specific revision' makes the scope clear.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'a specific document revision' — an agent can infer it needs a revision_id from a listing call first. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to kb_revisions_list for discovery or kb_revisions_restore for mutation.

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