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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "without changing the page" largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive detail is "retained previous," which hints at a retention policy but doesn't say how far back, whether results are paginated, or how large the list may be.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Nothing in it is wasted or buried.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is serviceable but leaves the key question (what "id" identifies) unanswered, and with no output schema there is no other place for that clarification to live.

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% for the single required parameter and the description never explains it. Critically, an agent cannot tell whether "id" is the page id whose revisions are listed or a revision id — a costly ambiguity with a sibling named get_revision present.

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 ("List ... content revisions") plus a scope qualifier ("current and retained previous"), which an agent can use to distinguish it from get_revision's single-item fetch. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or the page-scoping relationship.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent infers it should call this to enumerate revisions of a page. There is no explicit guidance on when to use list_revisions versus get_revision, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The trailing clause is a safety note, not routing guidance.

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