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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: results are ordered newest first and version provenance is exposed (editor, sync or API), which tells the agent what the payload looks like. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, so not a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the return shape front-loaded and the use case following. The colon-delimited field list is compact and immediately readable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does: ordering, provenance of each save, title, status and version id. Only pagination behavior and the relationship to sibling version-listing tools are unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema already documents slug, productId and limit (with the 1-200 range and default). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when structured fields carry the load.

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 resource (an article's saved versions) and adds distinguishing detail: newest-first ordering and the fields returned (who saved it, title, status, version id). It is clearly distinct from read_article and list_articles, but it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it — reviewing history or hunting for a version to restore — which implicitly routes the agent to restore_article_version. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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