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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that entries are dated and fingerprinted, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or empty-history behavior for a listing tool with limit/offset.

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 action and resource, and the second sentence productively links to the companion tool. No wasted words.

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 should convey what is returned and how pagination works. It names dates and fingerprints but omits pagination/ordering semantics, leaving the agent to guess how limit/offset behave when listing history.

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% for 3 parameters. The description only implies source_id via 'source publique'; limit and offset are completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 French description states a specific verb (Lister) and resource (révisions datées et empreintes d'une source publique), which clearly separates it from read_research_source. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from read_change_history, a nearby sibling, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this to enumerate a source's revisions, and use read_research_source to read any individual version. This is effective routing to a sibling, though it offers no exclusions or preconditions (e.g., source must be public).

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