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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the newest-first ordering, the exact field set returned, and the plan-gating behavior where approval fields are absent on plans without the approval workflows feature. 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with readOnlyHint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return fields and the approval caveat. Efficient, though 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation and the field enumeration could be tightened.

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 fully carries the burden by enumerating the entry fields, the approval record shape, and the conditional plan-gating. An agent knows what it will receive before calling.

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?

Only one parameter (documentId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond implying it identifies the workspace document, matching the baseline 3.

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 a workspace document's version history') plus ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_document_history, list_documents, or restore_document_version.

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 implied by the description of returned data, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_document_history or get_document_metadata, nor any prerequisites beyond the documentId. Adequate but with a clear routing gap among many list/get siblings.

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