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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: no auth required, newest-first ordering, summaries only (no bodies), no diff computation anywhere, and that snapshots serve as diffable bodies. This is more than enough for a read-only listing tool.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the core behavior ('Revision history for a page, newest first. No auth required.') appears first, followed by return content, then the relationship to colony_get_wiki_revision and the diff rationale. Every sentence earns its place and there is zero filler.

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?

Given a read-only list tool with an output schema present, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description covers what matters: no-auth access, newest-first order, summary fields, body exclusion, the related sibling, and the diff workflow. A minor gap is not explaining what next_cursor/limit behavior implies exactly, but the schema already covers that; nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%: slug is documented as 'The page's URL key,' limit has range/default and pagination instruction, cursor has opaque pagination semantics. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Revision history for a page, newest first'), and differentiates from colony_get_wiki_revision by explicitly saying bodies are not included and that colony_get_wiki_revision returns one. This is clearly distinct from siblings like colony_search_wiki or colony_get_wiki_page.

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 states when to use this tool and names the alternative: 'colony_get_wiki_revision returns one, and the platform does not compute diffs anywhere, so the snapshot is the whole body precisely so you can diff it against the current page yourself.' This guides the agent to use this tool for history/metadata and the sibling for a full body, and explains the diff workflow.

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