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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a motivational use case and says nothing about what a revision entry contains, whether results are paginated or ordered, or how many are returned.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, and the French phrasing is inconsistent with the otherwise English tool surface.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, this is the minimum viable amount of description. It is still unclear which identifier is required and what the returned history looks like, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly the first time.

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% and the description never mentions the single parameter pageId. The schema only constrains it to a positive integer, so the agent gets no explanation of what identifier is expected (page id vs. slug vs. revision id) or where to obtain it.

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 says it returns the page's history ("Historique de la page"), which implies listing revisions, but it never uses a listing verb and gives no scope. Several siblings do very similar things (get_page_revision, get_page_version, restore_revision, restore_section_revision), and nothing here distinguishes this tool from them.

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 clause "pour revenir à une version antérieure" implies the intended use case (finding an older version to revert to), which is genuinely helpful. However, it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions, so the agent must infer that restore_revision is the follow-up write action rather than this read tool.

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