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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest first, revision N is the board before change N, and revision 0 is the imported project. It does not describe the per-revision payload (id, timestamp, labels), which is the remaining gap given there is no output schema.

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 compact clauses with zero filler; the ordering fact is front-loaded and the revision-numbering semantics and the restore cross-reference follow immediately. Every clause carries information an agent needs, and the semicolon-dense style is appropriate for a short definition.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with full schema coverage, the description supplies the two things that could not be inferred: result ordering and the meaning of revision indices including the base case. No output schema exists, but the notion of what a revision is and how it is numbered is explained well enough to consume the results correctly.

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 single design_id parameter is already documented in the schema with its source tools (import_kicad_project, list_designs) and a pattern constraint. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

The description states the resource precisely ('the snapshots of this board') and adds ordering, making it immediately distinguishable from board-mutating siblings and from restore_board_revision. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', so the listing action is inferred from the tool name rather than stated, which keeps it just under 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?

It names the alternative, restore_board_revision N, and ties it to a concrete purpose ('goes back to it'), so an agent knows this tool is for inspecting revisions before restoring one. There is no explicit 'use this when you need to...' framing or a statement of when not to use it, so it stops at clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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