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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering, the exact field set returned, the empty-list case (no revisions or revisions disabled), and the required capability (right to edit the post). That is the auth/edge-case context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then empty case, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by describing the returned fields, their types, the date format, and the empty case. Combined with the permission note and the pointer to wp_get_post, nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already saying the id is the post or page whose revisions are listed. The description adds only marginal framing ("one post or page") and no format or validity notes beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("List the stored revisions of one post or page") plus the ordering (newest first), which distinguishes it from wp_list_posts, wp_get_post, and wp_restore_revision at a glance.

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?

Gives a clear usage context and explicitly routes content retrieval to wp_get_post with a revision_id, so the agent knows this tool returns metadata only. It does not mention wp_restore_revision as the follow-up mutation path or state when not to use this tool, so no explicit exclusions.

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