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

Beyond the annotations' safety hints, the description adds ordering (newest first), a result cap (up to 100), and the exact return shape including ISO 8601 timestamps. These are meaningful behavioral details that annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, then adds the return shape efficiently. Every clause contributes either purpose, usage routing, or output expectation.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and key fields, and the only parameter is fully schema-documented. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and use the result.

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 single id parameter is already documented in the schema as a recipe UUID. The description reinforces that this concerns one recipe but adds no extra syntax or format detail 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing saved revisions of one recipe, including who changed it and when. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by naming restore_revision as the follow-on rather than a substitute.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool to find a revision_no before calling restore_revision, giving the agent a concrete when-to-use condition and a named alternative context. No inference about the tool's role is required.

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