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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine extra context: that the returned revisions are immutable (safe to reuse/cache) and that mutations invalidate existing file and pack approvals, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the usage/impact note. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence is dense and slightly jargony.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the core purpose is conveyed, but the description leaves the required nested planRevision parameter completely undefined and does not characterize the returned revision entries, leaving an agent with gaps to fill.

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 the single required nested parameter (planRevision with outputJobId and payloadHash) is never mentioned or explained in the description. For a nested required object, the description should clarify what planRevision identifies, but it provides no parameter meaning at all.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List ... revisions' (the tool's document versions), with scope narrowed to 'current per-item immutable revisions'. It is understandable on its own, but it does not differentiate this tool from nearby read/list siblings such as read_document_plan or read_produced_document.

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?

It implies downstream usage ('Reuse them as expectedVersion') and warns that changing a file or draft invalidates prior file and pack approvals, which hints at when the versions matter. However, it gives no explicit when-to-call vs. alternatives guidance or prerequisites for invoking the tool itself.

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