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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, what each entry contains (timestamp, producer/origin, per-section counts, diff flags), and the 'not_found' outcome for a missing or non-owned resume.

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 action and ordering, then the per-version payload, then the error case. The dense semicolon-chained sentence is information-rich rather than padded, though it borders on overstuffed for a single sentence.

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?

Covers ordering, content semantics, producer/origin enumeration and error behavior, which is more than enough for an agent to call it correctly; the output schema already handles return shape. Missing only pagination/truncation behavior for the limit parameter and any auth note.

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?

The description contributes no parameter-level detail; it never mentions resume_id or limit. The schema itself does document both fields (range 1..50, default 20, resume id from list_resumes), so the structured data carries the load, but the description neither compensates nor adds syntax, ownership, or pagination semantics of its own.

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 scope ('List the saved versions of a resume, newest first') and clarifies what a version is ('the resume content as saved at that moment'), which cleanly separates it from get_resume (current content) and list_resumes (the resume list itself). An agent can pick this over its nearest siblings without opening a 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 a concrete use case — locating the version where missing content was last present via entry counts — which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It stops short of naming an alternative for restoring that version (restore_resume_revision) or excluding cases where get_resume_revision would suffice, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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