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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint false), so the single most valuable addition is the return-shape disclosure — text is derived Markdown and the raw ProseMirror tree is never returned — plus the writerKind value domain. It omits error behavior for a nonexistent revisionId or the effect of expectedProjectId being refused, which keeps it below 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?

One front-loaded sentence leads with the core action and scope, then layers return details. Heavy use of parentheticals and backticked identifiers makes it dense but each clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 no output schema, the description correctly takes on describing returned fields and the Markdown/ProseMirror distinction. For a read-only single-record fetch that is nearly sufficient; only failure modes (invalid revision, project-scope rejection) 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 all three parameters are already documented, including revisionId provenance. The description only restates that revisionId comes from list_document_revisions and does not clarify expectedProjectId or the cross-project refusal behavior — 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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: reads exactly ONE past revision of a document, in full. It names what is returned (Markdown text, language, date, author, writerKind) and distinguishes itself from get_document ('same discipline') and list_document_revisions (source of revisionId).

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?

Implicitly routes the agent: use list_document_revisions to obtain revisionId, and get_document for the current state. It never explicitly states when NOT to use it (e.g. read the current document instead), so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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