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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real scope information by clarifying that the review decision is a separate step, but says nothing about the recording/retry behavior implied by operation_id or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by scoping the tool away from the review decision.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the relationship to sibling inspection/decision tools, but the description is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (agent, document, change_id, operation_id), including the retry-replay semantics. The description's mention of 'an applied agent revision' loosely maps to change_id but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema.

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 ('Shows') and resource ('the diff of an applied agent revision'), giving an agent a clear picture of what the tool returns. It stops short of naming the sibling it diverges from (e.g. document.compare or document.review_decide), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'when the person needs to inspect what changed' gives usable context, and 'The review decision remains separate' gestures at a boundary. However, no alternative tool is named, so the agent must infer the routing between show_changes, compare, and review_decide.

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