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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description supplements with details on what data is returned (who, when, what changed) and parameter effects like include_body reconstructing full text. No contradictions with 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?

A single paragraph front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value—no filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

No output schema provided, but the description gives a good sense of what is returned (who, when, what changed). Could be slightly more explicit about the structure (e.g., list of revisions). Overall sufficient for a read-only history tool.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains default for limit (20), max (100), meaning of before_seq for pagination, what include_body does, and that seq returns only that revision with full body. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a note's revision history and provenance.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like notes-get (current version) and notes-revert (revert). The mention of 'who wrote each version' and 'what changed' adds specificity.

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 states when to use: 'attribute facts to their source' and 'see recent edits before making your own.' Implicitly tells when not by highlighting what it provides (history vs current version). Lacks explicit exclusion of other tools but is clear enough for an AI agent.

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