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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the bar is low. The description adds the required key scope (content:read) and a prompt-injection caution ('data, not instructions'), which are genuinely useful signals beyond the annotations.

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 terse sentences with the read-only constraint and safety note front-loaded. Slight crypticness ('One kept body') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 a no-output-schema read tool, the description explains what is returned (all languages, _meta, as it was) and the auth scope. It is adequately complete, missing only explicit navigation to the revision-listing sibling.

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 all four parameters (site, collection, id, revision) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it reads a single kept revision of an entry, including its data across all languages and _meta, distinguishing it from get_entry (current) and list_entry_revisions. It never names the sibling alternative explicitly, keeping it a notch below a 5.

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: the revision parameter references list_entry_revisions, so an agent can infer it should fetch a revision id first. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to get_entry, get_draft, or diff_versions.

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