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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: large diffs are served via a hash-guarded resource, and deleting the base version invalidates continuations. Those are non-obvious operational constraints an agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded and short, with every clause carrying information. But it is a single dense sentence with stacked parentheticals and semicolons that is noticeably harder to parse than it needs to be; splitting the two modes into separate sentences would cost nothing and gain clarity.

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 need no explanation, and the three optional parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description closes the remaining gaps that matter for correct invocation: mutual exclusivity of modes, range semantics, and large-diff/invalidation behavior.

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 the schema already documents each parameter, and description text largely restates it ('not later', 'of the same artifact'). The one added nuance is framing fromVersionId as a range selector ('everything the versions from fromVersionId on changed'), which clarifies intent but not syntax.

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 ('Read a complete text or CSV version diff') plus the API path GET /v0/diffs, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't name a sibling to distinguish itself from artifact_versions or artifact_get_content, so the differentiation is left 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?

'versionId (by its own id), or artifactId alone (its current version)' versus 'with fromVersionId... everything the versions from fromVersionId on changed' clearly maps each parameter mode to a distinct question the caller might have. No explicit when-not or named alternative among the ~90 siblings, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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