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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. Beyond that the description adds genuinely useful semantics: the content is immutable and later edits do not retarget relationship/assessment citations for this revision. It does not cover error behavior for a nonexistent revision, so not a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the citation-preservation caveat follows immediately. No filler, every clause carries meaning.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral contract (immutability, citation stability). Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when the requested revision does not exist.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It conveys the concept of addressing one exact revision but never explains that contribution_id identifies the parent contribution or that revision is a positive version number (minimum 1 per 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 specific verb (read) plus resource (contribution revision) and narrows scope to 'one exact ... revision', which implicitly separates it from the sibling read_contribution. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The second sentence hints at when this is preferable (when a stable, citable revision is needed and later edits must not retarget it), but it never states when-not to use it or names an alternative like get_contribution_changes or read_contribution. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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