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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known; the description goes further by disclosing the critical gotcha that entry ids belong to the old version and must be stripped before reuse, and by stating the 'not_found' failure condition including the ownership check. It stops short of describing pagination or output volume, but adds real behavioral value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the cross-version id caveat, then the error contract. Every sentence earns its place, though the restore-path sentence is dense enough that it could be split for readability.

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 shape need not be explained; the description nonetheless covers id provenance, the version-vs-entry restore semantics, and the not-found/ownership failure mode. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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?

Only one nested input parameter, and the description explains where revision_id originates (get_resume_history), reinforcing the schema's own field note. resume_id's provenance is left to the schema, which is a minor gap but not a material one for a single required parameter.

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 ('Get one saved version of a resume') and scopes it against siblings by tying revision_id to get_resume_history and describing the shape as identical to get_resume. An agent can distinguish this from get_resume, get_resume_history, and restore_resume_revision 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use update_resume_section (resending the entry without its id) to restore a single entry, and restore_resume_revision to bring back the whole version. The creation path for revision_id is named (get_resume_history), so prerequisites are covered.

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