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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the description's job is to add context — which it does: it discloses output format (no HTML), authorship preservation, and that restoring creates a new revision rather than mutating history. It stops short of describing pagination behavior beyond the cursor param.

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-loaded with the resource and scope, then the sibling routing, then the authorship/restore note. No filler or repetition of the name.

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 adequately characterizes what is returned (revisions plus conflict proposals, newest first, no HTML) and how they relate to page_get. The only gap is pagination guidance for limit/before, which the schema partially covers.

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% and the schema already documents before, page_id and connection. The description only adds ordering semantics ('newest first'); it says nothing about limit or how to page with before beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 fits since structured fields do most of the work.

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 (List) and resource (accepted revisions and retained conflict proposals) with ordering ('newest first') and format ('without HTML'). It is clearly distinguishable from page_get, which it names explicitly as the snapshot/proposal retrieval path.

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 the agent: use page_get(revision=...) for an accepted snapshot or page_get(change_id=...) for a proposal. This tells the agent both what this tool is for and which alternative to pick for adjacent needs, with the exact parameter to pass.

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