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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: revisions are newest first, the limit defaults to 20 with a max of 100, and revision ids are what a restore takes. It does not need to repeat the read-only nature already provided by 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it begins with what the tool returns, then explains addressing, revision id use, and defaults. Every sentence contributes relevant information without repetition or 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the revision fields an agent will receive, including id, version, change type, message, date, and changed blocks. It also covers ordering and limit defaults. A minor gap is that it does not explain pagination beyond the limit, but the core return shape and usage context are adequately described.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the limit default and maximum and says to address the page as get_page does, but most parameter meaning is already fully documented in the schema. It adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns a page's revisions in newest-first order and enumerates the revision fields returned. It distinguishes itself from get_page by noting that the page should be addressed as get_page does, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_recent_changes.

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 description implies when to use the tool by describing revisions and their use in restore operations, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like get_recent_changes or get_page. The reference to addressing pages as get_page does adds some context but stops short of clear usage alternatives.

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