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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: newest-first ordering, and the semantic distinction between entries carrying a `version` label versus null-version draft autosaves. It stops short of describing page size or truncation behavior, which is a minor gap.

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, front-loaded with the return shape and ordering before the use cases. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 must carry the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so for the key fields (version label, note, null-version drafts) and ordering. It leaves the remaining entry fields and result-size behavior implicit, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretive value by explaining what a 'labeled published version' is, which is exactly what makes the publishedOnly flag meaningful. It says nothing extra about workspace or limit, so it is above baseline without being complete.

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 ('The flow's revision history, newest first') and immediately scopes it to publish history, distinguishing it from siblings like workbench_flows_get and workbench_flows_list. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the 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 three explicit when-to-use cases — checking publish state, sourcing a revision id for caliper_evals_create's flowRevisionId, and seeing when the draft last changed — including a named sibling tool and the parameter it feeds. This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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