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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core read-only behavior and sort order, but it omits other useful behavioral context such as pagination, whether revision contents are included, or authorization expectations.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded, stating the primary action immediately. It earns its place without fluff, though it is slightly under-specified in other dimensions.

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 such a simple tool, the description is adequate at a minimum level, but it lacks important context because there is no output schema covering return values. It never mentions what fields a revision contains, how many are returned, or whether pagination is supported, which an agent may need to know.

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 one required parameter, slug, and the schema has 0% description coverage. The phrase 'of a wiki page' implicitly connects the slug to the target page, but the description does not explain the slug format, where to source it, or any constraints, so the compensation is minimal.

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 the specific action and resource: list revisions of a wiki page, ordered newest first. It distinguishes itself from a direct page fetch by focusing on revisions, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against siblings like get_page or recent_changes.

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 intended usage is implied: use this when you need a page's revision history. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as recent_changes for global change feeds or get_page for the current version.

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