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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the snapshot is immutable, the citation must be preserved, and source content is untrusted data rather than instructions — a meaningful behavioral/prompt-injection caveat not present in any structured field.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the alternative-tool routing and the untrusted-data caveat following in order of importance. No wasted clauses.

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 still identifies what is returned (an immutable snapshot), how to reference it (preserve the citation), and where the data comes from — enough for correct invocation. Return shape specifics are the only minor gap, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It implies orbit_id scopes the snapshot to a topic and revision_id selects the exact revision, but it adds no type, range, or format guidance for either. Marginal semantic value over the bare schema.

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 precise verb+resource ('Retrieve an exact immutable task-work or permission snapshot') plus the keying mechanism (revision_id within a topic), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read_contribution_revision. An agent can select it 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?

Explicitly routes contribution-history callers to read_contribution_revision instead, and rules out legacy memories that have no revision history. Both the when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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