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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the returned HTML is untrusted user content, and the operation leaves the page untouched – both are real behavioral disclosures not present in 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the security warning, then the non-mutation guarantee. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what is returned (HTML) and its trust level. Annotations cover the safety profile. The only real gap is the undocumented parameters, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 coverage is 0% and neither 'id' nor 'revision' is explained in either schema or description. The phrase 'one retained revision' vaguely gestures at the revision parameter but does not say what 'id' identifies or what a valid revision value is, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Read) and resource (original HTML from one retained revision of an owned page), and the closing clause implicitly separates it from restore_revision. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling alternatives outright.

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?

'Does not modify or restore the page' hints that restore_revision is the alternative for mutation, but it never says when to choose this tool or what prerequisite (an existing retained revision) is required. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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