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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: revisions are immutable, each carries an observation time and a predecessor pointer, and quotes are literal. It omits pagination behavior for the limit/offset parameters but does not contradict anything.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loading the purpose before the prerequisite and the revision semantics. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, where the id comes from, and what a revision contains. The only real gap is pagination semantics for limit/offset, which leaves an agent guessing about default result volumes.

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 explain the critical 'id' parameter (stable id from market.catalysts or company.litigation), but says nothing about limit or offset, leaving two of three parameters undocumented in both schema and prose. Baseline 3 reflects 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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource (a calendar event's immutable revisions and literal source quotes), which is concrete and non-tautological. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling catalysts.changes, which an agent might reasonably confuse with this history/revision tool.

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?

'Use the stable id returned by market.catalysts or company.litigation' gives explicit prerequisites and names the producing tools, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of 5 because it never states when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to catalysts.changes.

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