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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as what 'pending' means, ordering, pagination, or any side effects. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them, leaving the meaning of 'pending' undefined.

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 description is a single, compact sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. While minimal, it is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 values are documented elsewhere. However, the description is too terse to fully guide an agent: it does not explain what constitutes a 'pending' revision, nor does it clarify the dataset parameter. Given the 0% parameter coverage and the existence of overlapping siblings, the description leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'dataset', with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'for a dataset' but does not clarify its format, allowed values, or semantics. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent to guess what a valid dataset string looks like.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('pending revisions') scoped to a dataset. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_history or list_datasets, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer the intent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context with siblings like koskamo_propose_revision or koskamo_decide_revision. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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