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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine value on top: newest-first ordering and the fact that it works for deleted pages. It also enumerates the returned fields, which is meaningful context absent an output schema.

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 long parenthetical field list (when, op, agent, person, author, note, version) is informative but crammed mid-sentence, and the trailing fragment 'agent filters to one agent' reads awkwardly. Front-loads the core purpose but the middle is dense.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description does a fair job: it clarifies the optional path, the agent filter, and the return fields. Only limit handling and workspace semantics are left to the schema.

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 only 25% (workspace only), so the description must compensate. It explains path semantics (omit for wiki-wide) and the agent filter, but says nothing about limit, and workspace meaning lives entirely in the schema. Partial compensation, not full.

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 the resource precisely: a page's revisions newest-first, or, when path is omitted, the wiki's latest changes. The dual-mode behavior is clear enough to separate it from read_page and list_pages, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage by explaining that omitting path yields wiki-wide changes and that the agent parameter narrows to one agent. It never states when to prefer this over read_page/search_pages or gives any exclusion, so usage is only implied.

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