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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: it says the response contains change highlights, the revised original text, and newly inserted wording, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not cover error behavior or what happens for standards without a 2025 revision.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the two sentences are short and free of filler. The bilingual duplication (Chinese followed by an English restatement) is mildly redundant for an agent, but it costs little and does not obscure the content.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter and complete annotations, and the description goes further by describing what the response contains in the absence of an output schema. The only real gap is the lack of guidance on when to choose this over get_standard, which is minor for a tool this simple.

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?

There is a single parameter, code, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it as a standard or key-point code. The description adds no further meaning, such as format, example values, or how the code relates to the codes used by get_standard. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it lists what the 2025 revision changed in a standard, including change points, revised text, and newly written wording. That is clearly different from the sibling tools get_standard and list_standards, but the description never names those alternatives explicitly, so the distinction has to be inferred.

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 can infer it should call this when it wants a diff rather than the full text, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer get_standard or search_standards, and no prerequisites such as requiring a standard that actually has a 2025 revision.

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