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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: access control is evaluated against current ACLs even for historical snapshots. This goes beyond what the annotation alone communicates.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and target resource are front-loaded, and the ACL caveat is placed second without distracting from the primary purpose.

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 three-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the important calling context: what types are valid, that historical snapshots are returned, and that current permissions apply. It does not describe the response shape or offset pagination, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward history-read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the acceptable values for 'type' by listing interaction, evidence, identity_claim, trust, or attestation, but it does not explain what 'id' refers to or the meaning/behavior of 'offset'. This is partial compensation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the resource ('currently accessible revisions') along with the exact record types it covers. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from sibling write tools like revise_interaction or revise_trust.

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 clearly implies this tool is for reading historical revisions rather than current records, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like read_interaction or read_ledger, nor state when not to use it. Usage context is implied, not spelled out.

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