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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotations, it discloses that content is omitted for performance (with content_length as a proxy), that WordPress requires edit-level capability on the specific parent post (edit_posts/edit_pages/CPT capability), and that a low-privilege caller may still hit a permission error. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then required/optional params, then return shape, then the alternatives — a sensible ordering with little filler. It runs slightly long, and the trailing 'Through Royally: its server marks it read-only' sentence is largely redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 supplies the full return shape (revisions array fields, post_id, total, total_pages, page, per_page) and explains the deliberate omission of content. Pagination, permissions, and follow-up tooling are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so per_page (default 10, max 100), page, post_id, and site_id are already documented; the description mostly restates the defaults and bounds. The one added bit of meaning, that content_length is a character count, describes a return field rather than a parameter, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists all saved revisions of a WordPress post.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools wp_get_revision (single revision, full content) and wp_restore_revision (restore), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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 names alternatives explicitly and states the condition that selects each: use wp_get_revision with post_id + revision_id for full content, and use wp_restore_revision (preferred) instead of manually copying fields into wp_update_post. That is a rare, genuinely actionable when-to-use/when-not map.

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