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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. Nothing is added about ordering, truncation, pagination, or how many revisions come back — the details an agent actually needs for a history call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource. The trailing 'Read-only' clause is redundant with annotations and slightly wasteful, but overall there is no bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing what a revision record looks like — it says nothing. Combined with an undocumented 'before' parameter and no guidance on ordering or result limits, an agent cannot confidently invoke this beyond the required id.

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 only 25% (just workspace_id), and the description covers only the required 'id' implicitly via 'found by id'. The 'path' (defaulting to '/') and especially 'before' are undocumented in both schema and description, so 'before' semantics — presumably a revision bound — must be guessed.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('earlier revisions of a rule') plus the lookup key ('found by id'), which separates it from pathrule_read_rule (current version) and the parallel history_memory/history_skill tools. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the resource qualifier does the differentiating work.

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: an agent can infer 'use this when you need prior versions of a rule.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no precondition, and no pointer to pathrule_read_rule as the current-state alternative or to the memory/skill history variants.

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