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

With annotations already covering readOnly/non-destructive, the description goes well beyond: it explains that every write (from the app or the MCP) rotates the copies, which is critical behavioral context an agent could not infer. It also describes what each returned entry contains (slot, saved time, bytes, first titles), giving full transparency for a read tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the retention behavior and followed by the return shape and the pointer to the restore sibling. No filler.

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, yet the description specifies the per-copy return fields, and the rotation semantics are explained. For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 (document_id, workspace_id) are documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given the coverage but is the baseline rather than added value.

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 the exact resource ('las versiones anteriores de un documento') and enumerates the retention ladder (1m, 5m, 10m, 30m, 1h, 6h, 1d, 2d, 3d, 5d), so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It also names the sibling it pairs with ('restore_document_version'), making it distinguishable from get_document, get_document_files, and other document reads.

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 directs the agent to restore_document_version for the follow-up action, which is a clear alternative pointer. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_document or how this fits into an undo workflow, so usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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