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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond that: content is null when the section did not exist, and section comparison retains the current global theme. However, the theme sentence is ambiguous and no return shape or size limits are given.

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?

Four short sentences with the primary action first and the sibling pointer last; nothing is padded. Some sentences are terse to the point of being cryptic, notably the remark about section comparison and the global theme.

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 read-only, three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the null-content edge case and ID sourcing, which is meaningful. It still leaves pageId unexplained and does not clarify what a 'révision datée' contains or how the section preview differs from the full revision.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only partially compensates: sectionId is described as an optional single-section selector and revisionId is tied to list_revisions, but pageId is never explained and no format or relationship between pageId and revisionId is given.

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?

"Lire une révision datée" names a specific verb (read) and resource (a dated revision), and the optional single-section mode is stated up front. It implicitly separates itself from list_revisions, but the distinction from close siblings such as get_page_version or restore_section_revision is never drawn.

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 final sentence gives one concrete routing rule: use list_revisions to obtain IDs. The section parameter is framed as an optional 'aperçu ciblé', which implies when to use it. There is no guidance on when to prefer get_page_version instead, and no exclusion of mutation tools like restore_revision.

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