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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context that results include who changed the submission and when, and that the output is paged, but does not discuss rate limits or error behavior.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loading the resource and its content before the pagination note. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough: what is returned (who changed it and when) and that results are paged. Minor gaps around return format are acceptable given the simplicity.

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%, so both submission_id and page are fully documented in the schema, including pagination defaults and next_page usage. The description's word 'Paged' adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description names a specific resource — a submission's revision history — and clarifies its content as who changed it and when. It is clearly distinct from gocanvas_get_submission, though it does not explicitly reference that sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gocanvas_get_submission or gocanvas_list_submissions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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