Api document revisions retrieve

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile needs no restating. The one genuine addition is that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which tells the agent to expect partial data. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., missing id) or what 'related fields' means.

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?

One short sentence with zero padding, and the masking caveat is front-loaded. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness comes at the cost of substance.

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 lookup tool with one undocumented identifier, no output schema, and numerous near-duplicate sibling retrievers, the description should at minimum state the resource and which id is expected. Instead it leaves the agent to infer both.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not clarify whether it is a revision id, document id, or object UUID. Unlike a zero-parameter tool, the burden falls on the description here and it is unmet.

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 description says only 'Return a single object', which restates the retrieve verb in the title without naming the resource or what a document revision actually is. An agent reading only the description cannot tell that this fetches a specific document revision by id; the resource identity comes entirely from the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many siblings such as document_revisions_object_retrieve, document_revisions_list, or the diff/history retrievers. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are stated.

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