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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-content context ('author, date, and content changes'), which tells the agent what to expect beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded in the first. Every sentence contributes, though the second and third are somewhat redundant about the value of revision history.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a complete schema, this is nearly sufficient; the one gap is not directing the agent to wp_restore_revision for the follow-up action. No output schema exists, so the description is right not to over-explain returns.

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%, so post_id, site_id, and post_type are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'post or page' wording loosely maps to the post_type enum but adds no new parameter semantics. 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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'List all revisions of a post or page,' and specifies scope ('all'). It gestures at the sibling relationship by mentioning 'restoring previous versions' but never names wp_restore_revision, so the boundary with that sibling is only implicit.

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?

'Useful for tracking edits and restoring previous versions' implies usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not name wp_restore_revision as the tool to call once a revision is identified. The alternative is left to inference.

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