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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior the annotations do not: newest-first ordering, the exact fields per revision, the limit default/max, and the cross-tool contract that an id feeds a restore.

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 dense sentences with no filler: purpose and ordering first, return shape second, addressing and cross-tool id semantics third, defaults last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 compensates by describing return fields and ordering. Combined with 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so path/slug/tagPath precedence and the limit default/max are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the limit defaults and the addressing convention rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (a page's revisions in Radix Wiki) plus ordering (newest first) and enumerates the returned fields (id, version, change type, message, date, changed blocks). It also distinguishes itself from get_page by deferring addressing rules to it and from restore_revision by noting the revision id is what a restore takes.

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?

Gives clear context: address the page as get_page does, and the revision id is consumed by restore. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_recent_changes or get_page, so the exclusion side of the guidance is left implicit.

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