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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond those: it discloses that results are ordered newest-first and that authorship is attributed ('a device or an AI'), which the agent cannot learn from 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 compact sentence that front-loads the core content (earlier versions, ordering, authorship). The colon-plus-list construction is slightly awkward to parse but wastes no words.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so adequately: version entries, newest-first, each with an actor. It omits whether the current version is included and how limit interacts with the ordering, which are minor gaps for a read-only tool.

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 path parameter is exhaustively documented with examples. The description contributes only the 'newest first' ordering and says nothing about the limit parameter or pagination, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (earlier versions of a note's text, an app's code/data, or a file) and scopes it clearly, which separates it from siblings like fetch or list. However, it never uses an explicit verb ('list', 'retrieve', 'show'), so the agent must infer the operation from the noun phrase, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives; the obvious comparison to the sibling restore (which presumably acts on a version) is never made. The 'newest first' ordering hints at inspection use, but no condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is given.

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