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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: the exact return fields (id, version hash, dates, isDraftHead, isPublished), the draft head's saves and headAnchor, and the five-minute save-grouping rule. This is behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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 core purpose and ordering come first, then return-field semantics, then the cross-tool relevance, then pagination. Each sentence contributes new information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly, including field meanings and the unusual save-number grouping. Nothing essential for correctly interpreting the response 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%, including explicit descriptions for limit and offset with defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'limit and offset page through long histories' confirms intent but adds no syntax, range, or format detail the schema does not already provide.

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 ('Get the revision history of a page') plus ordering ('newest first'), and names the sibling it feeds into ('revert_page_revision_to_version'). An agent can distinguish it from revert_page_revision and get_page_content without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the key workflow condition: the save numbers returned here are what revert_page_revision_to_version takes to undo recent saves, which tells the agent when to use this tool first. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., versus get_page_content or get_all_page_statuses), but the context is clear.

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