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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context that this is a Pro feature and that results include both initial and revised values with vintage dates, but it does not explain entitlement failures, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core value and scope immediately.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the input concept and describes the returned revisions with vintage dates. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and error cases for non-Pro access.

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 50%: period has an example format, while series_id has no schema description. The description clarifies the conceptual roles of series_id and period by saying 'one period of a series', but it does not add format or identifier details beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the resource and scope: every revision of one period of a series, including initial print and later vintage values. It is specific enough to distinguish this from a simple latest/history lookup, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 phrase 'one period of a series' implies the tool is for vintage/revision retrieval, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over macro_history or macro_latest, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites beyond the '(Pro)' marker.

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