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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a non-mutating retrieval by saying 'Return', specifies the result format ('unified diff'), and scopes the operation to 'published versions' of 'this tenant's tools'. This is adequate, though it does not mention error cases or auth behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. The core verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately parseable by an agent.

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?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is returned, between what, and for whom. The main missing piece is guidance on how this relates to version-history siblings, but that is already captured under usage guidelines rather than a fundamental contextual gap.

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 fully documents name, from, to, and tenant_key. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('unified diff between two published versions'), and a clear scope ('one of this tenant's tools'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like host.tool_history and host.tool_list without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as host.tool_history or host.tool_rollback. The intended use is implied by the name and wording, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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