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

Annotations cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail: results are hashed and redacted, version history includes rollback lineage, and passing version returns a full redacted config_snapshot. No contradiction 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?

Three terse sentences front-load the core operation, then explain the alternate mode and endpoint correspondence. No filler.

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 an output schema and read-only/idempotent annotations present, the description covers the key behaviors: history listing, snapshot retrieval, and hashing/redaction. No critical missing info for a tool this simple.

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 describes all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the version parameter's effect (return single full snapshot vs list) and noting the data is hashed/redacted.

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 action and resource: 'List an agent's hashed, redacted assistant config version history (rollback lineage included).' This distinguishes it from every sibling tool, and the added behavior for single-version fetch is explicit.

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?

Clearly describes what the tool does and the conditional use of the version parameter to fetch a single config snapshot. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent knows when to call it.

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