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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: newest-first ordering, a 50-item limit, exact event types included, the metadata returned for each event, and the distinction between current_revision and pending_revision. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 definition is only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core return behavior. The dense first sentence earns its length by enumerating event types and returned metadata, while the second sentence cleanly explains current_revision and pending_revision.

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?

Given the tool’s simplicity, full schema coverage, annotations, and an available output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers ordering, result limit, event scope, returned fields, and the special meaning of current_revision and pending_revision.

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?

The single article parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including accepted forms such as id, address, URL, or slug. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: an article’s revisions, newest first, limited to the last 50, with enumerated event types such as saves, publications, schedules, slug changes, and takedowns. This is specific enough to distinguish it from get_article and get_entry_history, which cover current article data and entry history respectively.

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?

The description implies this is the tool for viewing an article’s revision history and clarifies the meaning of current_revision versus pending_revision. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_article or get_entry_history, nor does it name exclusions or prerequisites.

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