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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's only added behavioral fact is the newest-first ordering; it says nothing about pagination behavior or the scope of what a revision entry 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the ordering detail. Nothing is wasted.

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 present and 100% schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values or pagination syntax. Ordering is supplied, which is the key extra fact; only cross-references to kb_revisions_get/kb_revisions_restore are missing.

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%, so document_id, limit, offset and tenant_slug are all fully documented in the schema, and the tenant_slug fallback guidance is detailed there. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource (list the revision history of a document) plus the ordering, which clearly separates it from kb_revisions_get and kb_revisions_restore. It does not explicitly name those siblings, and the 'document' qualifier is what keeps it distinct from kb_skills_revisions_list.

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 name and phrasing imply when to use it (browsing history rather than fetching one revision), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like kb_revisions_get, and no prerequisites noted.

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