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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating that deleted documents are included and that only approved revisions contribute to the history, which is valuable context for interpreting results.

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?

The entire description is one well-structured sentence with no filler. The core action and resource come first, followed by the important inclusions (deleted documents, approved revisions), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read-only tool, and the output schema already exists. The description covers the key behavioral scope, the parameter is fully documented by the schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, and the single parameter is already documented as 'Dataset id or slug'. The description does not add new semantic detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('document version timeline') and clarifies the scope: every document including deleted ones, restricted to approved revisions. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like koskamo_list_revisions or koskamo_retrieve.

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 implies the tool is for viewing version/history information for a public dataset, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over koskamo_list_revisions or koskamo_retrieve. The intended use is clear enough to infer, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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