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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals ordering, the lack of HTML, authorship preservation, and the side-effect that restoring creates a new revision. It doesn't explicitly state read-only status, but 'List' strongly implies it.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately provide routing guidance. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, format, and important behavioral nuances. It could go slightly further by describing pagination or the fields returned, but the schema's before/next_cursor hint partially covers that.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context about what entries look like (revision vs change_id) but does not explain the limit parameter, which lacks a schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('accepted revisions and retained conflict proposals'), and adds ordering ('newest first') and format ('without HTML'). It easily distinguishes page_history from siblings like page_get and pages_list.

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 explicitly routes the agent to page_get(revision=...) for an accepted snapshot and page_get(change_id=...) for a proposal. This provides clear when-to-use versus alternative guidance with no need for inference.

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