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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior: that missing predecessors are surfaced rather than silently dropped, that paging advances via pagination.next_offset, and that an agent token is required. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: return contents, edge-case behavior, pagination, auth. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler whatsoever.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and adds auth and pagination guidance, so an agent can call and traverse it. The only gap is the record_id format, which is left entirely to the schema pattern.

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 coverage is 75%, so limit/offset/api_key are already documented in-schema. The description contributes the auth prerequisite (agent token) and ties offset to the response's pagination.next_offset, telling the agent how to traverse pages. record_id semantics remain unaddressed, keeping this below a 5.

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 and resource ("Read ... revisions") and enumerates the payload returned: before/after snapshots, reasons, sources, authors, dates. This clearly separates it from the sibling read_vote_history, though it never names an alternative explicitly. Distinct and concrete, just not sibling-routing.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you call it to inspect a record's revision history, and "Follow pagination.next_offset" gives operational guidance for paging. There is no when-to-use/when-not framing and no direction to read_information or read_vote_history as adjacent tools. Adequate but thin.

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