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

Annotations confirm readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'append-only' and 'revisions' which provide behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with action and purpose. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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?

While the description and annotations together provide good behavioral context and purpose, the complete absence of parameter descriptions (given 0% schema coverage) leaves the tool's usage partially unclear. Despite having an output schema, the parameter gap detracts from completeness.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (limit, ticker, window) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain any parameter's meaning, leaving the agent to infer from name and context. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states 'read append-only Confluence signal revisions' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_confluence_signals' by emphasizing revisions and append-only nature.

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 specifies usage 'for audit and replay', providing clear context. It implicitly differentiates from 'get_confluence_signals' (likely current signals), but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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