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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint and non-destructive, and the description's "read-only, runs straight away" merely restates them. The real added value is the disclosure that word_count uses strip_tags and misses attribute-stored text (Divi 5 block attrs, data-* attrs, alt text), so content_length>0 with word_count=0 is a normal page-builder case - a genuine behavioral trap an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the word_count/content_length digression is technical but earns its place as a real correctness caveat. The trailing "Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away" is redundant with annotations and could be trimmed.

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 responsibly enumerates the returned fields and their edge-case meaning, which is what an agent needs before calling. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of limit's default behavior (schema covers it) and no explicit pointer to the sibling that performs the diff or the restore.

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 67%: limit and site_id are documented in the schema, while post_id is documented in neither. The description adds field-level semantics but nothing about the parameters themselves (e.g. whether post_id accepts page/revision-of-revision IDs). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the majority of the documentation.

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+resource ("Get the revision history for a post") and enumerates the returned fields (author, date, revision ID, word_count, content_length), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It gestures at the diff/restore workflows handled by siblings (wp_diff_revisions, wp_restore_revision) without naming them, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 says the tool is "useful for 'what changed?' or 'revert to yesterday's version' workflows," which gives loose usage context but never tells the agent that diffing should go to wp_diff_revisions or that restoring requires wp_restore_revision. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving routing to inference.

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