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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: the required content:read scope, plan-dependent retention of 5 or 50 revisions, newest-first ordering, and a prompt-injection warning about user-authored text. It does not describe pagination or error behavior, but the behavioral additions are substantial.

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 compact and front-loads the read-only scope, then moves through returned fields and the safety note. It is somewhat dense and semicolon-heavy, but every sentence carries useful information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does list the key fields, ordering, and current_version. It is nearly complete for this list tool, though the terse get_entry_revision reference is not fully elaborated.

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 coverage is 100%, and all three parameters are documented in the schema with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool lists an entry's historical saved revisions, including ordering, retention, and returned fields. It also names the sibling get_entry_revision, though the routing sentence is terse and could be sharper about what data lives where.

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?

It gives useful context with the read scope, newest-first ordering, retention limits, and a pointer to get_entry_revision. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus that sibling or when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than directive.

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