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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deleted documents are still returned, and only approved revisions contribute to the history — a meaningful disclosure about result contents not present in the 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 dense sentence with the resource named first and the two scope qualifiers trailing. No wasted words, though the parenthetical and trailing clause make it slightly back-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described. The description covers scope and content accurately for a read-only history tool. It does not mention pagination or result-size expectations, which could matter for a timeline covering every document including deleted ones.

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% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'dataset'. The description adds only the 'public' qualifier on which datasets qualify, which is marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (document version timeline) and adds scope qualifiers — public datasets, deleted documents included, approved revisions only. It distinguishes itself implicitly from koskamo_list_revisions by restricting to approved-revision-produced history, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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 'public dataset' constraint implies when it applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer koskamo_list_revisions or koskamo_retrieve instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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