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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'READ-ONLY' line is largely redundant. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the coverage boundary (SchemaData only; tasks, comments, proposals omitted, and the response repeats this) — a non-obvious scope limit an agent needs before trusting a diff.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and the returned content, then usage motivation, then scope limits. Some redundancy: 'READ-ONLY' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, and the caps emphasis plus parenthetical 'the response says so again' is slightly verbose, but no sentence is 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (plain-word deltas with before/after values) and closes the biggest risk (assuming tasks/comments/proposals are covered). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema (from/to version numbers, expectedProjectId semantics). The description adds nothing about parameter syntax, ordering, or the expectedProjectId override, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (compares two versions, returns deltas) and enumerates exactly what is diffed (blocks, people, shares, dependencies, entity fields, metadata) with before/after values. An agent can distinguish this from get_version, list_versions, and restore_version without opening any schema.

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 when-to-use context: to account for what changed and to verify a restore actually undid what it was meant to. It also names scope exclusions (tasks, comments, proposals not included). It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (get_version / restore_version), so it falls short of a full 5.

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