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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: table-bearing blocks are returned as non-round-trippable read-only HTML in content_markdown, with explicit remediation (edit in ClearPolicy editor or omit body_markdown when copying). It stops short of covering error behavior or auth, so 4 rather than 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?

Three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation is stated first, caveats after. The transition between the round-trip warning and the ID-source hint is slightly abrupt but nothing is wasted.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still calls out the two fields that matter for the next action (body, lock_version). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, 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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents revision_id as a ULID, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where valid IDs come from (latest_draft_revision_id / latest_published_revision_id from create-document or get-document), which the schema does not.

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 ('Get a document revision') and names what it returns (body and lock_version). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get-document-tool, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

Uses 'for review' and points to create-document / get-document as the source of valid revision IDs, which implies usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over get-document-tool or create-document-revision-tool, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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