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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description repeats structured data, as does the trailing 'runs straight away'. The one piece of added value is that the return is the 'full stored content' — implying raw, possibly page-builder-laden markup rather than a rendered view — but there is no detail on size, format, or what happens for missing revisions.

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?

The first two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing 'Read-only.' plus the parenthetical site tag plus 'Through Royally: read-only, runs straight away' duplicate the same fact three times and crowd out more useful detail.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, workflow, and the recovery use case. Only the shape of the returned content is left implicit.

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 100%, and both parameters are documented in-schema (revision_id sourced 'from wp_get_post_revisions', site_id enumerated with a URL). The description reinforces provenance of revision_id but adds no format or edge-case semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the full stored content of a single post revision') and narrows the scope to one revision by ID, which cleanly separates it from the sibling wp_get_post_revisions that lists them. An agent can select this without opening the 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?

Gives explicit context: pair with wp_get_post_revisions, and use it to inspect a past version or recover content lost in a page-builder/plugin migration. It does not rule out alternatives such as wp_diff_revisions, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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